Flying across a line of thunderstorms [Archive] - Taking Flight

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 01:43 AM

I was checking out the weather map today, and see a REALLY long line of thunderstorms. I'm wondering what happens on cross-country flights when that line of "red" is practically unbroken, and to go around it is quite far out of the way? I can see a couple small holes around Wichita, and also just south of Cedar Rapids. Would a plane on a cross-country flight ever just land at a convenient airport and wait for the storm to pass if there wasn't a "hole" nearby? This is the report for Kansas City: Severe Thunderstorm Warning Update
/O.CON.KEAX.SV.W.0135.000000T0000Z- 080609T0100Z/ WYANDOTTE KS-JOHNSON KS- 733 PM CDT SUN JUN 8 2008
...A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY IN EAST CENTRAL KANSAS...AND SOUTHEASTERN WYANDOTTE COUNTY IN NORTHEAST KANSAS UNTIL 800 PM CDT... AT 729 PM CDT...TRAINED WEATHER SPOTTERS REPORTED A LINE OF SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS PRODUCING DESTRUCTIVE WINDS IN EXCESS OF 70 MPH. THESE STORMS WERE LOCATED ALONG A LINE EXTENDING FROM MERRIAM TO GARDNER... MOVING EAST AT 40 MPH. RECENT REPORTS OF 60 TO 70 MPH CAUSING DAMAGE WERE OBSERVED IN BONNER SPRINGS...DE SOTO...OLATHE AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION WITH NEAR HURRICANE FORCE WINDS EXPECTED. PERSONS ALONG THE INTERSTATE 35 CORRIDOR SHOULD PREPARE FOR IMMINENT DAMAGING WIND GUSTS AND SEEK SAFE SHELTER NOW!!

I've wondered what, if anything, is done to protect planes on the ground, e.g. at Kansas City airport. I noticed when I was there that there was a tornado shelter right in the terminal for passengers who have not yet boarded their planes. (Can you tell I live where we don't have tornadoes, and even thunderstorms are rare? ;))

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 02:24 AM

Unfortunately FlightAware's site went down right when I wanted to take a screen shot of airport activity, and just now came back up, 45 min. later. When I first looked at it, the storm was right over the airport (KMCI, Kansas City), and no planes were taking off or landing. Now it looks like a whole line of planes are coming in to land from the west, but none are flying in from the east and crossing that line of storms.

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 02:37 AM

Storms right over Madison and Milwaukee, and it doesn't look like any planes are landing or taking off there right now.

tusphotog

06-09-2008, 02:48 AM

Boy, I'm glad I don't live in the Midwest! No thanks! That is a very impressive line of storms. :shocked:

I bet there are holes in the storms--this isn't a particularly wide line of storms (in areas), so chances are the pilots have a much better view looking on the radar and out the windows. Just load up with a lot of gas, get up into the sky and look for a hole. A bunch of flights are going well north (into Canada) or well south of the line too.

That being said, some cells reach up to 71,000 feet. Or, about twice as high as a normal cruising altitude. http://aviationweather.gov/obs/radar/

It'll be quite a light show on those mid-cons and trans-cons tonight! I remember a few years back flying Cincinnati-Portland. Not only did we chase the sunset for the entire four hour flight, but for nearly three hours of it, we had a continuous light show. A couple glasses of wine, a decent steak dinner and watched the sunset and lightning. It was better than any inflight movie or entertainment I've ever had. Not to mention my upgrade cleared. :D

Since Barb is posting some screen caps, here are a couple I found going thru the line. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/FFT543/history/20080609/0019Z/KMDW/KDEN
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA2068/history/20080609/0036Z/KMDW/KPHX

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 02:48 AM

Near Wichita...there's a break in the line! :thumbsup: These planes (the green ones) are headed to Phoenix, Denver, San Francisco (not landing in Wichita).

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 02:54 AM

Hey, thanks for that Radar link, Tusphotog. I did a screen capture, just in case it's constantly updating, and the info. will disappear.
Your light-show flight sounds like it was fabulous. I have yet to have a good photo-op for BIG thunderstorms (of course...I've tried to fly early in the day in summer, so more likely to miss them).

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 03:00 AM

Here's a screen shot of Tusphotog's find on Flight Aware

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 03:04 AM

And, here's the second one. It looks like sitting on the left side of the plane would provide a nice view of the clouds for awhile.

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 03:06 AM

So, Captain Hutch (or anyone else who cares to share theirs), do you have some bedtime stories you can tell us about flying in summer thunderstorms? ;) :D

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 03:22 AM

Tornado Watch/O.NEW.KLOT.TO.A.0494.080609T0106Z- 080609T0600Z/
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS ISSUED TORNADO WATCH 494 IN EFFECT UNTIL 1 AM CDT MONDAY FOR THE FOLLOWING AREAS
IN ILLINOIS THIS WATCH INCLUDES 18 COUNTIES
IN CENTRAL ILLINOIS
LIVINGSTON
IN EAST CENTRAL ILLINOIS
FORD IROQUOIS
IN NORTH CENTRAL ILLINOIS
BOONE DE KALB LA SALLE LEE OGLE WINNEBAGO
IN NORTHEAST ILLINOIS
COOK DUPAGE GRUNDY KANE KANKAKEE KENDALL LAKE IL MCHENRY WILL
IN INDIANA THIS WATCH INCLUDES 1 COUNTY
IN NORTHWEST INDIANA LAKE IN THIS INCLUDES THE CITIES OF...AURORA... BELVIDERE...CHICAGO... DEKALB... DIXON...GARY...JOLIET...KANKAKEE... MORRIS...OREGON... OSWEGO...OTTAWA... PIPER CITY...PONTIAC...ROCKFORD... WATSEKA... WAUKEGAN AND WOODSTOCK.

These are the type of weather reports that tend to freak some of us out if we see them for our planned flight destination. (And Erika, we are thinking of you...stay safe!!)

One objective of posting all these screen shots is to take a look at what the planes really do in response to thunderstorms (and tornado watches).

This is what's going on in Chicago (ORD)....lots of planes landing and taking off, as long as that line of storms is off to the northwest, anyway. They are staying well away from it too, though a couple planes look like they might be thinking about trying to find a hole in the line.

Passenger Mark

06-09-2008, 07:38 AM

I've wondered what, if anything, is done to protect planes on the ground, e.g. at Kansas City airport. I noticed when I was there that there was a tornado shelter right in the terminal for passengers who have not yet boarded their planes. (Can you tell I live where we don't have tornadoes, and even thunderstorms are rare? ;))

Hey Barb... I asked about this a few threads down. (http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?t=8003) The video is "interesting"!

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 04:27 PM

Hey Barb... I asked about this a few threads down. (http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?t=8003) The video is "interesting"!
Thank, Mark...I had missed that thread. That's funny, the video using the theme from "Jaws"...:lol:

Barb-SAN

06-09-2008, 05:37 PM

It looks like the weather is forecast to be similar today. I've found that watching how the planes fly around storms (on FlightAware, airport activity) has given me more understanding of how the entire process works, why flights are delayed (and why that can be "a good thing"...;)). It has increased my confidence that planes will be routed around storms and turbulence as much as possible. :thumbsup:

conor

06-10-2008, 12:39 PM

CAflyer

06-11-2008, 04:45 PM

Yeah I know... people always say, " How can you live in CA with all those earthquakes?" I say the last time I was in a big earthquake was in 1994 and it didn't really bother me so I will take that over tornadoes,hurricanes, etc. any day. I am sure you will bring the sun with you :)

tusphotog

06-16-2008, 12:16 AM

Check this flight out on June 5. Seven hours JFK-SFO. Fun stuff!

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL17/history/20080605/2209Z/KJFK/KSFO

Barb-SAN

06-16-2008, 12:58 AM

Check this flight out on June 5. Seven hours JFK-SFO. Fun stuff!

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL17/history/20080605/2209Z/KJFK/KSFO
Looks like a similar weather picture to what we were looking at on the 8th, and a good way to find out the answer to my question...What do they do when there's a solid line of thunderstorms? At least in this case, they flew an extra hour to go around that line. It looks like they were in a holding pattern (see green circle near line of thunderstorms?) before continuing south too.

I took a screen shot to post here for archival purposes, as after a few months we won't be able to access it on Flight Aware. Looking at the flight tracks for UAL17 on different days on Flight Aware...they are all over the place...sometimes way north, sometimes almost a straight line, sometimes to the south.

I looked up the flight track for the 8th of June, but unfortunately they show the flight only lasting 31 minutes. So...did they just stop tracking, or did the plane return to JFK? Will we ever know??

tusphotog

06-16-2008, 08:57 AM

They probably circled a couple times to decide how to get thru that line. They probably were sitting up there painting the line with the radar to find a hole. Just take on a lot more gas. AA had a flight divert to PHX that day after doing something similar.

On the 8th, it looks like they were dispatched to do a southern route down to Little Rock (LIT), Texarkana (TXK), Bonham Texas (BYP), Guthrie Texas (GTH) and then north to Truth or Consequences New Mexico (TCC), Las Vegas NM (FTI) and into SFO from the Coaldale NV area (OAL). Now, I don't know if this is what they flew since flight aware is really unreliable. Welcome to springtime in the midwest, folks!

ps. Side piece of trivia: anyone know where Truth or Consequences got its name? Yes, it is a real place.

Barb-SAN

08-05-2008, 05:38 AM

An answer to the question...what happens if there are tornado warnings...and people are already on board their planes and waiting to depart? http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/26016505/ I wonder if this happens very often?

"Passengers at O’Hare International Airport were evacuated into the lower levels of the complex’s buildings. Travelers who had already boarded airplanes were taken off as the storm struck, then led to the lower levels as a precaution.
The storms did not cause any damage or injuries at O’Hare or Midway Airport, said Department of Aviation spokesman Gregg Cunningham."

Barb-SAN

08-25-2008, 11:15 PM

We're in our summer thunderstorm season here in Southern California (though they are mostly up in the mountains to the east of San Diego, and down into Baja California). You can see how the planes are flying through a "hole" in this line of thunderstorms (and avoiding the "red" areas).

Barb-SAN

08-25-2008, 11:19 PM

Severe Thunderstorm Warning:

Barb-SAN

08-25-2008, 11:25 PM

Radar Coded Message Composite Image with Tops
Looks like that cell to the east of San Diego is around 33,000 ft. high, and the one down in Baja is 48,000 ft.

CAflyer

08-26-2008, 12:54 AM

Yeah I love the big beautiful clouds all around the mtns lately but I think Turbulence when I see them too.

tusphotog

08-26-2008, 06:57 AM

Barb-SAN

08-26-2008, 03:18 PM

I flew LAX-TUS early today. There were a lot of storms firing up once we passed over the San Bernardino mountains. From there on out to Arizona, storms were popping up all over the place. It was 745am. A couple looked like they well above our cruising altitude of 41,000 feet. That's rare in these parts. Landing in TUS felt like landing in Atlanta. Hot and muggy. Yuck!

Thank TD Julio spinning around in Baja.7:45AM...Wow...that seems early. I usually notice the clouds over the SD mountains this time of year around noon...building to a peak around 2PM.
Don't suppose you had a chance to snap a photo or two of those clouds you'd care to share?...;) It would be nice to have some visuals to correlate with the radar screen shots. :D (If not from yesterday, then perhaps from a similar weather day?).

Also, Tusphotog...how was the turbulence yesterday?

tusphotog

08-26-2008, 07:06 PM

It would be nice to have some visuals to correlate with the radar screen shots. :D (If not from yesterday, then perhaps from a similar weather day?).

Also, Tusphotog...how was the turbulence yesterday?

No photos: I was in the aisle. I was hoping to have the row to myself since there were only 45 people onboard. Of course, that didn't happen. :rolleyes: This is an old photo from the Oregon/California border from last year. Crater Lake is down in the far bottom right. Looks kind of similar to what it was yesterday.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2237/2217621254_4e24f18939.jpg

As for the ride, it was pretty smooth. Light chop as we went into the clouds during the descent into TUS, but that was short lived.

Barb-SAN

09-01-2008, 06:31 AM

Thanks for posting that photo, Tusphotog. :)

I thought I'd post the airport activity for New Orleans this evening (12:40 AM CDT)...looks like everything is shut down, awaiting the arrival of Hurricane Gustav. I wonder if all the planes were flown away from the airport? I noticed on the aviation weather forecast that there's a forecast of wind gusts up to 81 MPH tomorrow. :shocked: I assume no planes will be landing or taking off in those winds.

Text: FM1400 07055G70KT 1SM +RA OVC015
Forecast period: 1400 UTC 01 September 2008 to 0000 UTC 02 September 2008
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the ENE (70 degrees) at 63 MPH (55 knots; 28.6 m/s) gusting to 81 MPH (70 knots; 36.4 m/s)
Visibility: 1.00 miles (1.61 km)
Ceiling: 1500 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 1500 feet AGL
Weather: +RA (heavy rain)

Barb-SAN

09-01-2008, 06:45 AM

Here's a radar image covering a larger area...as Hurricane Gustav is approaching land.

tusphotog

09-01-2008, 10:20 AM

I thought I'd post the airport activity for New Orleans this evening (12:40 AM CDT)...looks like everything is shut down, awaiting the arrival of Hurricane Gustav. I wonder if all the planes were flown away from the airport?

You're correct. I read somewhere that MSY shut down operations around 6 p.m (give or take). I would think everyone sent their planes elsewhere prior to the airport shutting down. Southwest didn't have any aircraft overnight at MSY Friday or Saturday night. They cancelled all their flights starting at 430pm Sunday.

You assume correct about nobody flying down there tomorrow. Aside from the odd lifeline/angel flight/military flight once the winds die down, nobody is going flying (in a plane--they might fly if they wander around the CBD/Mississippi River).

I feel bad for the folks down there. I met a lot of really awesome people while I was down there--many of whom had heartbreaking stories about losing all their things.

ETA: As of 4:25 am CDT, the first of the stronger bands of Gustav are just off the airport. The eyewall hasn't made landfall yet. Probably 100 miles off shore. Still tracking west of the city. The radar picture is attached. You can start to see the outer edge of the eyewall. The blue blobs you see up around the Jackson, MI/Memphis area and beyond are radar junk.

Last update from me. I need to go to sleep. But I wanted to add that Southwest was bringing gas in from other stations (called "tankering") to guard against fuel supply issues. Here are links to two NOAA hurricane hunters.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NOAA42

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NOAA49

Barb-SAN

09-01-2008, 04:00 PM

I feel bad for the folks down there. I met a lot of really awesome people while I was down there--many of whom had heartbreaking stories about losing all their things. I've never been to New Orleans, but agree, from the stories and photos in the media, it is very sad, and surely stressful. I wonder how many people will leave New Orleans for good after this storm? What a logistics nightmare too....bussing all those people who don't have their own cars or people to stay with further inland. At least this time it sounds like the evacuation was more organized, and they learned how to improve it after Katrina (e.g. letting people take their pets with them).

On the other hand...we have people like this guy... http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/31/1317302.aspx excited by the prospect of storm-chasing... just hope he doesn't get into trouble and risk rescuer's lives trying to save him.

And the media is there providing coverage: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26493730#26495171 Watching that, I kept waiting for the newscaster to be blown up into the air and down the street to give us some more exciting footage....:rolleyes:

Those NOAA hurricane hunter flight tracks are interesting. Thanks for posting the links! :)
I'm posting the screen shots for future reference as we can only access them on Flight Aware for a few months.

This one is for a Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream IV twin-jet (note, flying high and fast at .77Mach and 41,000 ft.). It looks from the track like they are surveying the "big picture" of the hurricane. It would be interesting to know just what they are doing (photography, radar, wind measurements???)

Barb-SAN

09-01-2008, 04:05 PM

Here's the other one. I wonder what all that back and forth activity represents? At first I thought it might be flying in and out of the eye...but then realized it's flying quite close to Florida, not Louisiana. Note that it's flying lower (10,000 ft.) and slower (280 kts).

I think this is the plane we've seen flying in some of the hurricane hunter videos (Lockheed Martin p-3 Orion (quad-turboprop)http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/CBP_P-3_Orion.jpg/180px-CBP_P-3_Orion.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-3_Orion&h=92&w=180&sz=5&hl=en&start=8&usg=__KqCC0DFCLINBS203OYNw-i2iaFg=&tbnid=YSH9W8yb6eu4CM:&tbnh=52&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLOCKHEED%2BMARTIN%2BP-3%2BOrion%2Bhurricane%2Bhunter%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den ). Seems these pilots are the unsung heroes of major hurricanes...when their information helps to make the forecasts that send millions fleeing to the safety of higher ground inland. I wonder if the pilots even notice the turbulence any more? ;)

Barb-SAN

09-01-2008, 05:11 PM

Aviation weather forecast for New Orleans airport (MSY)

Barb-SAN

09-01-2008, 05:32 PM

Here's what the hurricane hunter is up to today: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NOAA49
Nice triangles and squares for the flight path...

Barb-SAN

09-01-2008, 06:04 PM

Here's the most recent radar image on the Weather Channel.

Captain Hutch

09-07-2008, 04:39 AM

Barb-SAN,

you have an insatiable appetite for the weather!

For the most part we rely on our aircraft weather radar for real time information. The scope has a range of 320NM--I usually leave it on 160NM or 80NM range if there is any weather out in front of our route of flight. In the case of a line of t-storms if we can't fly over them or around them, if there is some yellow or green area we will fly through that but never through a red area. We might fly through a hole that is 5-10nm wide, but any smaller might be pushing it because sometimes the hold closes up. If there is no way to get through and it is too far to go around, we would probably hold until maybe a hole opens up, or until we figure we need to land for fuel, usually at an online (no not the internet, but an airport where our airline has operations) airport. Although every situation is different, in a way it is the same and it really isn't that difficult to figure out what you are going to do. One caveat is that once you DO figure out what you are going to do, like maybe divert to a certain airport, then go ahead and do it and don't be swayed by what all of a sudden looks like something better. It is usually better to stick with your decision that you thought out after discussing it with the copilot. ATC's radar is not weather radar and is not as good as the aircraft, and so it is best to use ATC as advisory info and not base your decision on them. Sometimes if a particular area looks doubtful as a passageway, but ATC will say that the last guy flew though there and had a smooth ride, I will take the same route.

I remember vividly several years ago I had a night flight somewhere in the Cleveland area and for an hour we paralleled a very active line of thunderstorms. The cloud to cloud nearly continuous lightning put on a magnificent light show that I will never forget.

Hutch :)

Barb-SAN

09-07-2008, 05:22 AM

Barb-SAN,
you have an insatiable appetite for the weather!
:D:D
Well, you know, turbulence is one of the most common fears that people write about here, especially connected to thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes. It was a factor in my fear of flying...and I'm combating it by learning as much as I can about it. It's easier to relax and let the pilots do their jobs when we know just what you are doing up there in the cockpit when there's "weather". ;) Thanks for your explanation.
I remember vividly several years ago I had a night flight somewhere in the Cleveland area and for an hour we paralleled a very active line of thunderstorms. The cloud to cloud nearly continuous lightning put on a magnificent light show that I will never forget.
Hutch :)
That must have been an incredible sight to see...best view for you guys in the cockpit, but the passengers too must have marveled at the show. Wouldn't it be fabulous if someone could capture that on video and put it up on YouTube? :cool:

Heh...following that thought, I went looking on YouTube, and indeed, there are videos of lightening from an airplane...VERY COOL! Here are some links...
At night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T5Rk5MTR9g&feature=related
At sunset (I like this one, as you can see the clouds better, and the relationship of the lightening to the clouds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1l_AndL0PU&feature=related
Photography comment on this one...about keeping the camera zoomed out (wide angle)...better to show the overall effect of the lightening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MosVmU_lk&feature=related
In Mexico: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU6bY86jSxY&feature=related
Richmond VA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxUyfH1ypOk&feature=related

tusphotog

09-08-2008, 09:07 AM

That must have been an incredible sight to see...

One of the most spectacular sights I've seen recently was last year flying into LaGuardia at some horrific early morning hour on a nightmarishly delayed flight. On approach into LGA we punched through a pretty decent rain cloud and were tooling along when a bolt of lightning streaked right over the top of our plane. It was close enough that you could hear the crack of thunder over the engines. Followed by the "ooohs" and "ahhhs" and "holy sh*t."

As we were deplaning, I thanked the pilots for the ride and the light show. Their comment: "that was awesome, huh?"

Of course, that rain cloud made my cab ride a terrifying one.

Prior to that experience into LGA, it was a continuous four hour light show from Cincinnati to Portland.

Barb-SAN

09-08-2008, 05:16 PM

Now, here's a fun video.... Thrill-seeking behavior, much??

"How safe are you from lightning on an airplane?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFLTmG2d_xs&feature=related
"IN THIS VIDEO, NASA launched an F-102 Delta Dagger into thunderstorms on purpose; get it struck by lightning and moniter its effect on aircraft.

You also meet one of the research pilots explaining what its like to come face to face with 50,000 degrees of electricity."

Barb-SAN

09-13-2008, 08:36 AM

Eye of Hurricane Ike makes landfall at Galveston, Texas, as Category 2 hurricane

Here's what it looks like now on Google Earth...that thing is HUGE! Wishing safety to all in the path. :grouphug:

Barb-SAN

09-13-2008, 08:44 AM

Here's the map from The Weather Channel ... (and needless to say...the Houston airport has been closed for awhile now...)

Barb-SAN

09-13-2008, 05:26 PM

Watching what's happening today with that weather... :eek:, moving to the north...and how is that affecting aviation today? Here's a message about Dallas (posted yesterday), where the airport is still open:
DALLAS FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
VICE PRESIDENT PUBLIC AFFAIRS: KEN CAPPS 972-973-5555KCAPPS@DFWAIRPORT.COM (972-973-5555KCAPPS@DFWAIRPORT.COM)

DFW International Airport Weather and Customer Service Statement in anticipation of Hurricane Ike
DFW International Airport, Texas (September 12, 2008 - 4:00 PM) DFW International Airport is preparing for potential disruptions in flight schedules Saturday as a result of the expected impact of Hurricane Ike. The Airport will remain open, but flight delays and cancellations may occur as Ike's strong wind and rain head to North Texas. The National Weather Service predicts the hurricane will make landfall near Galveston, about 290 miles south of DFW, late tonight or early Saturday morning. Ike is expected to be a Category 3 hurricane at landfall on the Texas coast, but should weaken to a tropical storm by the time it reaches the DFW area.

As a result of Ike, the DFW area is expected to see tropical storm-force winds starting Saturday morning between 7:00 AM and 10:00 AM and lasting into the afternoon. This could include sustained winds of 30 mph to 40 mph, with gusts to 50 mph for several hours on Saturday, as well as 2 to 4 inches of rainfall. The FAA, the airlines and DFW will monitor flight conditions closely, with safety remaining the top priority as decisions on flight schedules are made. The remains of Ike may also affect flights across the United States this weekend, so travelers are advised to check with their airlines on the latest status of a flight. Should flight cancellations arise, the Airport’s response teams will be ready to step in to assist passengers. Passengers are urged to go to www.dfwairport.com (http://www.dfwairport.com) and click on Flight Tracker to monitor all arrivals and departures from DFW. Military personnel returning to duty from R&R leave are asked to contact their rear detachment and the Personnel Assistance Point listed on their Port Call sheet should they encounter any flight delays during their journey back to the Middle East.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 12, 2008

You can see the edge of "Ike" in the lower right corner of the screen shot (11:35AM CDT), and that so far there are plenty of planes still flying in and out of DFW, while avoiding most of the storm.

Note...the reason I'm posting this is also for future reference here, when people are wondering what might happen if they need to fly anywhere near a major storm.

Barb-SAN

09-13-2008, 05:47 PM

Google Earth Screen Shot (11:45 CDT)

Barb-SAN

09-14-2008, 10:26 PM

Article and video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26676853/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/20355386#20355386

Captain Hutch

09-19-2008, 03:56 PM

Barb-SAN,

Those were some really great clips on lightning strikes--thanks for putting them on!

Hutch :thumbsup:

Barb-SAN

08-12-2009, 05:15 PM

Since the AF447 crash, there have been several people posting here with concerns about pilots flying "right into thunderstorms". I asked a friend of mine who flies an Airbus 320 if he would take a couple photos for us showing the cockpit radar where there are thunderstorms, and the actual cell as seen out the front window of the plane.

On the radar photo, the plane shows up as a yellow cross at the center bottom of the screen. The solid green line is the current flight path. The dotted green line is the original flight plan before making a course deviation. As the plane got closer to that small red spot, they made another course deviation so as to not fly through the red area.

There are 20 nautical miles between each of the semi-circular dotted white lines, so you can see that the plane currently is a little more than 40 NM away from a large storm (center left) with two red areas. They don't go through the red as there's a possibility of hail in those parts of a thunderstorm.

He said this was somewhere over South Carolina. You can see from the display that they are flying in a south,southwest direction (18 = 180 = South, 27 = 270 = West, and they are flying at 214), it's 19:20 hrs, ground speed is 446, airspeed 458.

A quick email check/verification with the pilot...the 205/11 is wind direction and velocity, the arrow indicates the direction of the wind. That makes sense, they are flying into a headwind of 11, which means that though their true airspeed is 458, relative to the ground the plane is flying slower due to the headwind.

Any further interpretation or comments, Capt. Hutch, Aerobat Barb, or anyone else who knows how to read these?

Barb-SAN

08-12-2009, 05:19 PM

Here's that thunderstorm cell (left side of radar) as seen from "the front office, left seat". :) Seems forbidding...and that you would want to give it a wide berth...
Nice view, eh? Much better than back in coach...;)

ThrottleHold

08-30-2009, 08:00 PM

Here is another similar photo that I took inflight over Montana.
The figure "70.3L" denotes that we have diverted 70.3 nautical miles to the left of our original track. This was to enable us to find a clear path between the storm cells.

GS 515 = groundspeed is 515kts
TAS 466 = True Air Speed is 466 kts
242/50 = spot wind from 242 degrees at 50 kts
VBI 049 834 01:10 = next on track waypoint is Sioux Narrows VOR on a track of 049 degrees and 834 nautical miles away. Will be reached at time 01:10z
-1.8`= auto-tilt angle of weather radar antenna.

On the right, you can see the airspeed indicator showing a current speed of 266kts indicated / Mach 0.805

Captain Hutch

09-02-2009, 07:56 PM

Guys,

Thanks for all the great pictures and great discussions. Yes, if the line is solid we may not even take off. If it looks like there is a way around it we will load up with fuel up to our gross weight and fly the new route. If the hole closes up when we reach it then we'll hold to see if something else will open up. Landing at an alternate airport is always an option; when that happens by the time we fuel up again the storms have usually moved on. And when this does happen, the patience of the passengers is usually greatly appreciated since the alternate airport can be overloaded putting a strain on their manpower. I know that is seems very strange and out of the ordinary to land at some other airport other than your destination, but more than likely it is an airport that the pilots are familiar with and have landed there before on scheduled flights.

Hutch :tiphat:

Barb-SAN

09-02-2009, 11:25 PM

Once again we are having our summer cummulonimbus clouds and thunderstorms over the mountains to the east of San Diego. Here's a view looking due east (and about 10 miles N. of KSAN). Those clouds look a lot more impressive in person than they appear in the photo.

Barb-SAN

09-02-2009, 11:27 PM

Here's the airport activity as seen on FlightAware. San Diego is KSAN, in the lower center of the photo. You can see that the planes have a corridor they can fly in to avoid that large cell (the same one you see in the above photo, on the left side). They can't fly too far to the south, however, as they would then be in Mexican airspace.

Barb-SAN

09-02-2009, 11:39 PM

On the right, you can see the airspeed indicator showing a current speed of 266kts indicated / Mach 0.805
Hey, thanks, ThrottleHold for posting that photo with all the explanations!

Would you (or Capt. Hutch) explain the difference between Indicated Airspeed, True Air Speed, and Ground Speed, and why you need to know all three of those numbers? Also, why is there such a large difference between indicated airspeed, and true airspeed?

On the Indicated airspeed readout...there are some pink squares at the top, and also two green dots. Their significance? I see the indicated airspeed is currently halfway between those two green dots.

Would you explain a bit more about the auto-tilt of the weather radar? Does that help you determine the height of cummulonimbus clouds?

http://www.takingflight.us/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2728&stc=1&d=1251658715

ThrottleHold

09-04-2009, 02:24 PM

Would you (or Capt. Hutch) explain the difference between Indicated Airspeed, True Air Speed, and Ground Speed, and why you need to know all three of those numbers? Also, why is there such a large difference between indicated airspeed, and true airspeed?

Indicated Airspeed (IAS) is the speed measured by the Pitot tubes, basically due to the pressure of the air being forced into it. This is what is displayed on an Aispeed Indicator and is the primary speed measurement.
As altitude increases, the outside air pressure decreases, meaning less air molecules are being forced into the Piot tube, therefore reducing the pressure effect.

The Air Data Computers (ADR's) can compensate for the change in outside pressure, temperature and density and compute a True Airspeed (TAS), which is effectively the actual speed that the aircraft is moving through the surrounding air.

Therefore, when flying at a constant IAS, as altitude increase, TAS increases, and inversely in a descent.

Groundspeed (GS) is the speed of the aircraft in reference to the fixed ground. This is basically the TAS +/- the head or tailwind component. As you can see in my photo, the TAS is 466kts, + the 50kt direct tailwind gives a GS of 515kts. (1 Kt out!)

IAS is the important figure as all flying is based on this value.

On the Indicated airspeed readout...there are some pink squares at the top, and also two green dots. Their significance? I see the indicated airspeed is currently halfway between those two green dots.

The pink squares are actually red and black. The bottom of the red/black bar corresponds to the current Mmo/Vmo (Mach maximum operating/ Velocity maximum operating) speeds. This basically is the fastest speed/Mach allowed in the current configuration. This also varies with altitude, decreasing as altitude increases. Selection of flaps/slats, gear etc will also cause this bar to move.

The top green dot is actually 2 green ticks, the same as the ones visible on the extreme right of the photo beside the attitude indicator.
This represents a speed of Vmo + 4kts or Mmo + 0.006 Mach. Going above this speed will activate the overspeed warning and begin to introduce the Airbuses built in protections.
The autopilot will disconnect and the aircraft will reduce the authority of any nosedown inputs on the sidestick. If the pilots take no action (or insufficient action) to reduce the speed, the aircraft itself will begin to pitch the nose up in order to reduce speed and will also roll the aircraft to wings level.
The 2 green ticks on the Attitude Indicator on the right represent a bank angle of 67 degrees. This is the absolute limit that the flight control computers will allow the aircraft to be rolled to. If the sidestick is released, the aircraft will roll back to 33 degrees angle of bank and maintain it automatically.

The bottom green dot represents the best lift-to-drag ratio speed. It only appears when all flaps/slats are retracted. It is also the single engine manouvering speed.

The amber strip at the bottom represents VLS (Velocity Lowest Selectable) This is the slowest speed which you can select the aircraft to fly at in the current configuration. In the clean configuration this is 1.23 x the stalling speed. Again, this strip will vary according to flap/ slay and speedbrake postion.
Going below this speed gets the aircraft into the territory of its inbuilt low speed protections.

Would you explain a bit more about the auto-tilt of the weather radar? Does that help you determine the height of cummulonimbus clouds?

Older weather radar systems were manually controlled in their antenna tilt angle and gain by the pilots. In the newer ones, the auto function lets the radar search for returns itself and present on the display a better picture. The earlier photo posted shows an older version. The newer ones are clearer to read, especially on the new LCD displays compared to older CRT ones.
As to determining the height, that is quite difficult to do but a rough estimate can be made by manually adjusting the antenna angle up and down.

Passenger Mark

09-04-2009, 04:35 PM

Wow this is a great discussion! So much fantastic information. Barb... as usual your attachments bring LIFE to a discussion.

Hutch, Throttlehold, it is so fantastic to get so much education from the guys who occupy that front office!

Thank you all very much!

Barb-SAN

09-04-2009, 07:55 PM

Thanks, Throttlehold, for that great explanation. I may be formulating a few more questions for you in a bit!

Here's an example of current plane and thunderstorm activity in S. Florida (Chigal just flew to Miami...see track in tracking forum http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?p=85362&posted=1#post85362). Looks like thunderstorm cells are popping up all over, and the pilots have figured out the best route between them. Hope we will get a first hand report from her when she has computer access.

http://www.takingflight.us/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2732&stc=1&d=1252090313

Barb-SAN

09-04-2009, 09:09 PM

Just for the heck of it, I left the Miami airport activity map up, and noticed that an hour later, there's been quite a change in how airplanes are approaching Miami. They seem to be flying in from the North (as well as the Southeast) rather than from the West. Turquoise planes are arriving or departing KMIA, green ones are just flying "in the vicinity". I'm wondering if there's too much risk that "holes" in that area of thunderstorms will close up (i.e. new cells will form) if they try to cross it from the West? Or maybe it's more turbulent in that area? Flying to and from the North seems, from the radar, like clearer skies.

Thoughts, Capt. Hutch and Throttlehold? Do either of you fly into Miami frequently? Any comments on "typical" Florida weather, and how it affects your routes?

One thing that seems obvious from studying these maps, is that airplanes have LOTS of flexibility in their routes, and can maneuver around bad weather. Weather radar in the planes and on the ground is also invaluable in deciding where to fly.

Barb-SAN

09-06-2009, 04:18 PM

Quite a treat last night at sunset...we rarely see these here in San Diego. Possibly the smoke/particulates in the atmosphere from the LA fires added to the color, as this is looking NE from San Diego (cell may be somewhere near Palm Springs or in the mountains between here and there). There was a severe thunderstorm warning for the desert areas east of San Diego earlier in the evening, and then a flash flood warning. I would have LOVED to have seen this cloud from the air! (From a good distance AWAY from it!)

Here's an interesting link with more information about thunderstorms: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.worldweatherweb.com/images/supercell2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.weatherseattle.com/30/pt/Temporal&usg=__0V8A9nxFST7Le3gzIKqzNnB_vv4=&h=200&w=300&sz=21&hl=en&start=17&tbnid=POkJDmLqS4UdiM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsupercell%2Bsan%2Bdiego%26gbv%3D2%26h l%3Den
There are two main types of thunderstorms: ordinary and severe. Ordinary thunderstorms are the common summer storm. They are usually multi cell. Multi cell storms consist of a line of thunderstorms in different stages of development. Ordinary thunderstorms last about one hour. The precipitation associated with them is rain and occasionally small hail. An ordinary thunderstorm cloud can have a vertical extent up to 12 kilometres. Severe thunderstorms are the most dangerous weather phenomenon. They are capable of producing baseball-sized hail, strong winds, intense rain, flash floods, and tornadoes. Severe thunderstorms can last several hours and can reach a vertical extent of 18 kilometres. Several phenomena are associated with severe thunderstorms. These include the gust front, microburst, super cell thunderstorm, and the squall line.....

A super cell thunderstorm is a huge rotating thunderstorm. It can last for several hours as a single entity. These storms are the most likely to produce long-lasting tornadoes and baseball-sized hail.

Barb-SAN

09-06-2009, 04:21 PM

Of course I had to see what the planes were doing in relation to this weather (screen shot taken close to the time of the sunset photo). I'm quite sure there were more cells to the northeast that don't show up on this map (I think the one in my photo is further north). You can see there's a large area due east of San Diego where no planes are flying. There is a regular route that parallels and is north of the Mexican border for east/west-bound planes....but no one is using it right now.

Barb-SAN

02-14-2010, 04:12 PM

MathFox just posted this link in Falcon's forum on another thread. I enjoyed reading the captain's perspective of crossing a line of thunderstorms, and thought it worth linking here as well. :thumbsup:
http://flightlevel390.blogspot.com/2010/01/white-caps-in-captains-coffee.html

Barb-SAN

07-21-2010, 05:26 PM

DENVER — A United Airlines jetliner hit severe turbulence while flying over Kansas, injuring 30 and jolting one woman out of her seat so forcefully that she left a crack when she hit the side of the cabin, authorities and a witness said.
The Tuesday flight was the airline's third this year during which passengers were hurt because of turbulence....

Flight 967 was flying over Kansas (http://www.rr.com/news/topicdl/dlt/0anV49y925fIj/Kansas) at an altitude of about 34,000 feet when it hit the heavy turbulence, Fergus said. It was carrying 255 passengers and 10 crew members.
The turbulence was "just a huge up and down," said passenger Kaoma Bechaz, a 19-year-old Australian in the United States visiting her boyfriend.
Bechaz told the Post that the woman sitting next to her hit her head on the side of the cabin, leaving a crack above the window, and a girl across the aisle flew into the air and hit the ceiling.
Bechaz said she wasn't thrown around because her seat belt was tight.
The crew decided land the Boeing (http://www.rr.com/home/topicdl/dlt/00wr9OB1Scg9n/Boeing) 777 in Denver to tend to the injured, United Airlines (http://www.rr.com/home/topicdl/dlt/0cezePucXJ6B1/United_Airlines) spokeswoman Megan McCarthy said.
It's not clear where in Kansas the plane hit turbulence but there was a line of strong thunderstorms extending from the middle of Missouri (http://www.rr.com/news/topicdl/dlt/02Y27H21rheYx/Missouri) through the middle of Kansas on Tuesday evening. Thunderstorms, with updrafts of up to 100 mph, can cause bumpy rides for airplanes as they pass from an area of calm air to churning air, much like a speed boat hitting choppy waters, said Chad Gimmestad, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service (http://www.rr.com/home/topicdl/dlt/05sS1irem03fD/National_Weather_Service) in Boulder.
Gimmestad said forecasters can't predict where those bumps will occur so airliners generally try to fly around such storms.http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/8459870/16622194/Flight_diverted_after_30_hurt_in_severe_turbulence/1

Here's the track of the flight from FlightAware:

Barb-SAN

07-21-2010, 07:10 PM

I just did a Google news search to see if there's any more information about UAL 967. Here's an article from AccuWeather.com (with a dramatic title...) "Exploding Thunderstorm Caused United 967 to Hit Severe Turbulence" http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34316/exploding-thunderstorm-cause-u.asp

Exploding Thunderstorm Caused United 967 to Hit Severe Turbulence

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2010/images/personalities/65x50-bw/hettinga.png By Kirstie Hettinga, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer

Jul 21, 2010; 10:37 AM ET

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2010/300x140_07211540_ap10072004236.jpg United Flight 967 is pulled away from the B Concourse at Denver International Airport where it had been diverted after experiencing "significant turbulence," July 20, 2010. The Federal Aviation Administration says 30 people were injured from the incident. (AP Photo/Barry Gutierrez)
A rapidly forming severe thunderstorm was the cause of major, injury-causing turbulence that forced a United flight to land in Denver Tuesday night.
United Flight 967 was en route to Los Angeles when it came into a storm over Kansas.
AccuWeather.com Severe Weather Expert Henry Margusity said that the storm exploded upwards into the jet's flight path. The storm climbed from about 25,000 feet to 45,000 feet in 30 minutes.
The plane would have encountered updrafts of more than 50 mph, and there was evidence of very strong updrafts occurring at and above 30,000 feet.
United 967 was flying at 34,000 feet when the pilot asked to be rerouted to Denver.
Margusity said that flying into the updrafts would have caused the plane to jump.
The speed at which the thunderstorm was developing, Margusity said, was like a wall of intense turbulence going up in front of the plane.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2010/400x266_07211719_page-3.jpg
The storm also produced large hail.
About 30 people experienced moderate to critical injuries, which reports indicate include whiplash, bruising and head and neck injuries. Most people were not seriously injured, but about 25 people were taken to area hospitals, including several crew members.
The plane was rerouted to Denver, where it landed without incident around 7:45 p.m. local time.
The jet, carrying 235 people, including 10 crew members, was a Boeing 777.
This is the third reported incident of turbulence causing passenger injuries on a United flight this year.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2010/400x266_07211543_grlevelimage.png
Tuesday evening's radar image of Kansas from about the time that United Flight 967 encountered severe turbulence.

What's missing here in the radar picture is where the airplane was in relation to the red areas...
Also, the fact that the storm "produced large hail" does not necessarily mean that the plane was struck by large hail.

tusphotog

07-21-2010, 08:24 PM

What's missing here in the radar picture is where the airplane was in relation to the red areas...

Take a look at the radar picture you posted again, then look at the plane's flightpath. They were well south of that line of weather. That line of weather is around the Kansas City area and south to around Emporia. Their flight path took them to the south part of Kansas.

The PIREP I saw last night showed the report just to the north of Oswego Kansas, which is another 130-140 miles south of Emporia.

It's likely they encountered blowoff from that weather, but I highly doubt they punched through a storm cell like the Accuweather folks say.

Barb-SAN

07-21-2010, 08:36 PM

It's likely they encountered blowoff from that weather, but I highly doubt they punched through a storm cell like the Accuweather folks say.
Sorry if I wasn't clear...my point was that the Accuweather reporting neglected to show where the plane was in relation to the weather, so THEIR story was incomplete. It leaves the casual reader to assume that perhaps the plane flew right through that weather. I've gotten a lot more "aware" and sensitive to news reporting after years of dissecting aviation stories here. ;)

I just took a look at FlightAware, for the radar an hour before UAL967 landed. The FlightAware radar for each flight shows the radar at the END of the flight. MathFox pointed out on another thread that we can see earlier radars by looking for other flights that landed earlier. I haven't read yet exactly the time that UAL967 encountered the turbulence, so am just guessing that maybe it was an hour or so before they landed. You can see from the attached screen shot where the storm cells were an hour before UAL967 landed at KDEN (ignore the flight track line).

There's another thread addressing this same event in the General Discussion Forum, linked here: http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?p=88291#post88291

Barb-SAN

07-21-2010, 09:25 PM

Updates and corrections from AP...the link I posted earlier has been updated: http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/8459870/16622194/Flight_diverted_after_30_hurt_in_severe_turbulence/3

I suppose like most of these situations...it's good to wait for the "official investigation" to get the complete story.
I've read first person accounts by one passenger who said the plane dropped "thousands of feet". Another said the drop only lasted "5-10 seconds".
Looking at the track log http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL967/history/20100720/2125Z/KIAD/KDEN/tracklog
you can see between 17:00 and 17:03 the plane descended from 38,000 to 34,000 ft., and then stayed at 34,000 ft. until
beginning the descent into KDEN. So, was that just a planned change in altitude?
According to the AP, now Flight 967 was about 90 miles east-southeast of Kansas City (http://www.rr.com/news/topicdl/dlt/0dyj8Dd9fH0Wv/Kansas_City), Mo., at an altitude of about 34,000 feet when it hit the heavy turbulence.

Barb-SAN

07-21-2010, 09:39 PM

Some additional details from ABC News: (note that the 5,000 cases refers to severe turbulence, NOT injuries)
The turbulence that struck United Airlines Flight 967 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/30-injured-united-airlines-severe-turbulence/story?id=11214091) was nothing new to pilots. Sixty-five thousand reports of turbulence over the U.S. are filed by pilots every year, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research (http://www.ral.ucar.edu/aap/themes/turbulence.php), and 5,500 of them are "severe or greater."....

"This is depressingly familiar," said ABC News aviation consultant John Nance, a veteran pilot. "About 60 people a year get hurt by this. We've all heard the prohibitions about sitting down in your seat without putting your seatbelt on, but unfortunately there's always a number of people in the cabin who don't have their seatbelts on when something like this hits without warning." ...

"Pilots don't fly through storms, not because of the bad weather itself, but because of the updrafts and downdrafts," said Laura Brown of the FAA.

The air currents can be powerful, moving at more than 100 mph.
On Tuesday, there were thunderstorms in the area around Flight 967, and planes were being diverted around it, the FAA said. The plane carried 255 passengers and 10 crewmembers, according to United. Passengers said the seat belt light was on, but not everyone paid attention.

"Sometimes with very strong thunderstorms, strong turbulent waves will form near the top of storm," said Clinton Wallace, deputy director of the Aviation Weather Center (http://aviationweather.gov/) of the National Weather Service (http://topics.abcnews.go.com/topic/National-Weather-Service), in an e-mail to ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/). "This is often at the same altitude that planes fly. These turbulent waves spread out from the top of the storm similar to the way waves move in a pond when a rock is thrown into it. In rare cases, these strongest waves can move great distance from the storm and vertically displace the aircraft very quickly."

Turbulence: United Airlines (http://topics.abcnews.go.com/topic/United-Airlines) Flight Was Flying Around Storm
Wallace said it is possible that Tuesday's turbulence "was far removed from the thunderstorm" itself -- that the pilots may have thought they are going around the edge of the storm system, but got caught in strong drafts anyhow.

"For those couple of seconds, I just saw people fly up like in front of me," said Brian Liu, a passenger interviewed at the Denver airport (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11212146) after United 967 landed. "Actually, the lady sitting beside me, she actually flew up to the roof and she hit the ceiling and she landed on my lap."

For now, radar and regular weather forecasts are airlines' best defense against turbulence. Large storm clouds tend to have convective air currents around them, and pilots are urged to steer clear.

And what can passengers do to protect themselves? Common as such incidents are, safety authorities say they should follow the mundane warnings to keep seat belts tight, even if the weather out the window looks good.

It so happens, said the FAA, that no airline pilot has been seriously injured by turbulence since 1962, which is when the government began to require that pilots be belted at all times.

A storm is visible, but the turbulence around it is not.
"Some of it can be seen by radar," said the FAA's Brown, "but obviously we don't know where every severe updraft and downdraft is."

TillyLilly

08-11-2010, 12:18 PM

MathFox

08-11-2010, 06:29 PM

A storm is visible, but the turbulence around it is not.
"Some of it can be seen by radar," said the FAA's Brown, "but obviously we don't know where every severe updraft and downdraft is."

This statement worried me slightly, if the turbulence can't be "seen" via any of the instruments can it cause the plane to react incorrectly at times or for a jolt to confuse the computer systems?
:confused:

The main issue with turbulence is inconvenience to the passengers. Planes are designed to handle more than 1G acceleration (the kind of movements that make loose objects and unstrapped passengers hit the ceiling). Yes, damage to passengers and freight is not uncommon. The plane will fly on like nothing much happened.

Weather radars (both groundbased and in planes) are a great tool, but older tools (pilot eyes) are still in use too. Pilots also report on what they see or notice, so other planes can avoid turbulence.
When a plane hits turbulence it will essentially move straight on, despite taking a few pushes. Read Aurora's flight report: http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?t=9636 There also is a thread on Jello (or jelly): think of a plane encased in a cube of jelly, now shake the jelly and see the plane move: that is a lot like encountering turbulence: the plane shakes with the surrounding air.

Barb-SAN

08-11-2010, 06:39 PM

This statement worried me slightly, if the turbulence can't be "seen" via any of the instruments can it cause the plane to react incorrectly at times or for a jolt to confuse the computer systems?:confused:
I've wondered about this too, and have read conflicting information about whether or not the autopilot is left on during mod-severe turbulence, or if the pilot hand-flies the plane.
Here's a discussion about that on Airliners.net (pilot's forum)
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/226027/1/#22
It seems that "it depends" (on the pilot and the plane), some pilots leave the autopilot on, and some turn it off .

I hope Capt. Hutch, Aerobat Barb, Throttlehold, and Falcon will add their professional opinions. :D

Barb-SAN

03-21-2011, 05:50 AM

Watching the San Diego weather this evening, we just had a squall line pass through. The National Weather Service posted this advisory:
"AT 900 PM PDT... A SQUALL LINE EXTENDED FROM ESCONDIDO SOUTHWARD TO IMPERIAL BEACH. THIS LINE OF STRONG STORMS HAS A HISTORY OF PRODUCING HEAVY RAIN... SMALL HAIL AND WIND GUSTS TO 50 MPH.
THE STRONG WIND GUSTS MAY RESULT IN DOWNED TREES AND POWER LINES IN SOME AREAS. HEAVY DOWNPOURS WILL REDUCE VISIBILITIES TO LESS THAN A 100 HUNDRED YARDS AT TIMES".

This is what it looked like for SWA flight 715 BWI-SAN...they flew around the squall line rather than through it, landing on RWY 9. The aviation weather shows winds with gusts from 33 to 46 MPH, from the S & SE (160-190) 180 is a direct crosswind for Rwy 9. The plane landed safely.

Barb-SAN

04-27-2011, 01:46 AM

The National Weather Service in Shreveport said the potential exists for a violent outbreak of tornadoes late this afternoon into the overnight hours along and north of the Interstate 20 corridor of northern Louisiana.
The chance for precipitation is expected to increase to 60 percent this evening and continue overnight.

Meteorologists said a strong upper level trough in combination with an unstable and highly sheared environment will likely result in the formation of supercells across the region with a violent and potential deadly tornado outbreak expected.

Very large hail and damaging wind will also accompany the convection late this afternoon through the overnight hours.

Reportedly, two to four inches of rain with isolated higher amounts can be expected.

A lake wind advisory is in effect until 7 a.m. Wednesday. South winds are expected to be 10-to-15 mph and gusty and increasing to 25 mph this afternoon with gusts of up to 35 mph expected. http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110426/NEWS01/110426012

Here's what the airplane activity looks like now...lots of planes airborne, but avoiding a large area of storms.

The turquoise planes are trying to get to Memphis. I checked the weather for Memphis, and there is currently a tornado warning, so expect they will be diverting or doing a holding pattern until those cells move away from the airport. I did check one of the planes, and indeed it is currently in a holding pattern to the SW of Memphis.

Edited to add, 7:37PM PDT, there's a notice up on FlightAware that Inbound flights to Memphis are delayed at their origin an average of 50 minutes due to thunderstorms.

Barb-SAN

04-27-2011, 01:59 AM

Here's a close-up of the track of a LearJet in a holding pattern in clear air, waiting for the storm cell to move away from Memphis.

Barb-SAN

05-24-2011, 07:52 PM

There's a rather foreboding weather analysis today for esp. Oklahoma, Kansas, N.Texas from www.weather.com (http://www.weather.com), posted to YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnGaM4sdxpU&feature=player_embedded
Stay safe, all of you who live in the affected areas (or are flying to them). It will be interesting to see if, and how, aviation is affected later today in Oklahoma City, Wichita, Tulsa (highest probability of tornado outbreaks)...:eek:

Barb-SAN

05-24-2011, 11:17 PM

Live reporting of tornadoes around Oklahoma City...the announcer is warning people to GET UNDERGROUND or leave the area. Dang. Meanwhile they have a helicopter up looking for the tornado, but the pilots are complaining that the tornado is wrapped in rain & haze, and hard to see/photograph. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43159213/ns/weather/

Doesn't look like there's much airplane activity at OKC airport...though there is a FedEx plane heading in.

I guess only a true weather geek would be fascinated watching this online from sunny San Diego...:rolleyes:

Barb-SAN

05-24-2011, 11:22 PM

Tornadoes on the ground, the FedEx A306 does a holding pattern, and then heads away from Oklahoma City and that line of storms...:thumbsup:

Barb-SAN

08-03-2011, 05:03 AM

I saw this linked on Flyer Talk and thought it a good addition to the thunderstorm thread here: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/08/delta-191-was-26-years-ago-today.html
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Delta 191 was 26 Years Ago Today
A friend of mine reminded me that today is the anniversary of Delta Flight 191, the L-1011 that crashed on approach to Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport in a microburst.

In another largely unrecognized triumph of weather science, we have all but eliminated the once-frequent wind shear plane crashes.

Here (http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2010/08/25th-anniversary-of-crash-of-delta-191.html) is what I wrote a year ago today. And, here is my posting, Anatomy of a Microburst (http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2010/07/anatomy-of-microburst.html), which is the second most popular posting on the blog.

Barb-SAN

08-28-2011, 02:26 AM

I posted a number of screen shots of aviation activity in the vicinity of Hurricane Irene on this thread in the general discussion forum: http://www.takingflight.us/forums/showthread.php?t=10037

I thought it might be of archival interest to save some of the screen shots here at TF, since it's such a large hurricane, and on such a potentially destructive path through major population centers.

Here's what's currently happening in the air around KIAD. Interesting that at least some planes are still flying between bands of precipitation, and landing at KIAD.

There is a notice up on FlightAware that there are "mass cancellations due to a hurricane" at
LGA, JFK, EWR, PHL, IAD, DCA, BWI.
So far today, 3,906 canceled flights, and tomorrow over 6,000. :eek:
That's a lot of passengers to rebook next week.

Current ADDS aviation weather and forecast for KIAD:
METAR text: KIAD 280103Z 36016G27KT 5SM -RA BR BKN010 BKN016 OVC027 22/21 A2942 RMK AO2 PK WND 36027/0054 P0001 Conditions at: KIAD (WASH DC/DULLES , VA, US) observed 0103 UTC 28 August 2011 Temperature: 22.0°C (72°F) Dewpoint: 21.0°C (70°F) [RH = 94%] Pressure (altimeter): 29.42 inches Hg (996.4 mb) Winds: from the N (360 degrees) at 18 MPH (16 knots; 8.3 m/s)
gusting to 31 MPH (27 knots; 14.0 m/s) Visibility: 5 miles (8 km) Ceiling: 1000 feet AGL Clouds: broken clouds at 1000 feet AGL
broken clouds at 1600 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 2700 feet AGL Weather: -RA BR (light rain, mist)

Forecast for: KIAD (WASH DC/DULLES , VA, US) Text: KIAD 272340Z 2800/2906 01024G40KT 5SM -RA BR FEW009 BKN013 OVC023 WS020/02045KT Forecast period: 0000 to 0200 UTC 28 August 2011 Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change Winds: from the N (10 degrees) at 28 MPH (24 knots; 12.5 m/s)
gusting to 46 MPH (40 knots; 20.8 m/s) Visibility: 5 miles (8 km) Ceiling: 1300 feet AGL Clouds: few clouds at 900 feet AGL
broken clouds at 1300 feet AGL
overcast cloud deck at 2300 feet AGL Wind shear: at 2000 feet ( 610 m) AGL, from the NNE (20 degrees) at 52 MPH (45 knots; 23.4 m/s) Weather: -RA BR (light rain, mist)

Planes appear to be landing to the North (into the wind) at KIAD, here's a link to the runway diagram http://www.airnav.com/airport/KIAD