WX Radar Training

[b182fly]

I am looking for some sort of online course on Airborne Weather Radar That isn't insanely expensive but also very useful. My company could improve their RADAR training a lot. Typically we watch the Archie Trammel video straight through with little to no discussion on the content so it is hard to get much out of it. There is a ton of useful information in it though. I found one Through Flight Safety that is over $300 I have found a few others for $199 (RTI and Sporty's). I also found King Schools for $59. It is hard to say what the content is like in the King one based on the description. Does anyone have experience with a good course?

 

[dustoff17]

I went through the Archie training AND the FSI training. In the classroom, Archie is painfully boring. However, if you apply Archie's techniques, he's dead on!

As for the FSI training, quite frankly, by the end of the course the only thing I learned was that I was $300 in the hole. I think you'll find that the FSI training IS Archie with a $300 price tag.

Got nothing for you on the RTI/Sporty's/King courses

 

[wheelsup]

If you want the really, really, easy way to use and interpret WX RADAR here is the way.

The basic principle is this - aim the center of the beam between ~18,000-20,000 ft (can go up to 25,000 ft, but it might get a little violent for most people, 18k is the Honeywell recommendation). The color returned (green, yellow, red, purple) corresponds with rainfall intensities for convective weather in the majority of the US*. I'm not 100% sure on the intensity levels but they are calibrated for those specific intensities at that specific altitude. In other words, a red return at 10,000 ft isn't a red return at 18,000 ft, the storms have vastly different levels of convection.

How do you do that? If you are at 18,000 ft your tilt setting is zero. Gain is at zero as well.

Otherwise the rule of thumb is every degree of tilt up or down at 10 mile intervals = 1,000 ft.

If you are at 10,000 ft, and the storm is at 40 miles, your tilt needs to be at a +2.0 to get an accurate read on the storm. (40 miles + 2.0 = +8,000 ft, + 10,000 = 18,000)
If you are at 4000 ft and the storm is at 20 miles, you need to be at +7.0. (20 miles +7.0 = +14,000 ft, + 4000 = 18,000)
If you're at FL320 and the storm is at 50 miles, you need to be at -2.5 to -3.0. (50 miles -2.5 = -12,500 -3.0 = -15,000, FL320-12,500 = 19.5, FL320-15,000 = 17,000).

*In the more arid parts of the US, you might need to use Gain +1 (such as CO, AZ, etc.). In the more humid parts of the US, such as FL, you might need to use Gain -1.

Sporty's used to sell a $20 or $30 course from David Gwinn but I can't find it anymore. It came with a CD and booklet. Dave died, I wonder if someone could post it to Youtube now...

http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Gwinn_99_Radar.html

Long but good read.
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/weather-radar-techniques.35839/

 

[b182fly]

Thanks for the info so far. I had a feeling that FSI was less than its cracked up to be.

I am starting to read the other thread posted and it is good so far. My question for wheelsup is regarding the dish diameter. The tilt angles you provided above are only good for a certain diameter correct? From my understanding the tilt angle will be different depending on the size.


I did find a video from David.

 

[wheelsup]

All you will get from knowing the dish diameter is knowing what TIP is. That is, the tilt that sets the beam level with your altitude and above. In reality that isn't really that big of an importance. What is worth knowing is being able to quickly determine tilt needed to center the beam at the 18-20k level based on distance to the storm.

A smaller dish will spread out wider and possibly over estimate the return on the storm (because it will show returns at a lower altitude as well) but if anything it will keep you safer. Don't worry about dish diameter, focus on the math for now. I never much used TIP.

 

[Tommay85]

The formulas are spot on, except you want to paint the 8-12,000 foot area of a storm to find it's intensity. That is the most intense part of a thunderstorm, and most of the water molecules won't be frozen in most places at that level. Frozen moisture doesn't provide much of a return unless it's large hail. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

IIRC, I think everything from a Brasilia sized airplane on up uses the same size dish (your beam is about 4 degrees wide). Subtract two degrees from the tilt setting and you have approximately where the bottom of your radar beam is painting.

The discussion so far about the center of the beam is most of what you need to know in my opinion, however, finding the tops of smaller cells when you're IMC is also useful. It's paramount in the tropics, particularly around the ICTZ. In that area, green can be severe or even extreme turbulence. I don't go through anything more than 10,000 feet thick in any part of the world if I can find it visually or with the radar. 10k thick is moderate chop and turbulence in most places. Much more than that will throw things around a bit. It's also useful if you're in cruise and want to know if you're going to top a line of weather by a safe margin. Keep in mind that much more than 100 miles out, you're dealing with the curve of the earth and calibration issues with the tilt setting you've selected.

When in doubt avoid everything you can. The most I've ever added to a flight in a slow turbo-prop was 18 minutes avoiding a CAT I hurricane. You should have enough fuel for thunderstorm cells and most squall lines to find a good path. Don't panic about fuel and blast through something that beats up the plane, you, and whatever/whoever is in back if you don't need to. If you do get forced into an undesirable situation and live, reflect on it and do a better pre-flight next time...

Interesting ideas on adjusting the gain. I've always left it at the maximum setting, but I can definitely see how that could be useful.

Oh, and learn your aircrafts radar unit display. For instance, in our Brasilias, a solid arc by the edge of the display is warning you of an echo that it's picking up outside of the display range you've selected. With other units, it's warning you about possible attenuation.

 

[typhoonpilot]

The formulas are spot on, except you want to paint the 8-12,000 foot area of a storm to find it's intensity. That is the most intense part of a thunderstorm, and most of the water molecules won't be frozen in most places at that level. Frozen moisture doesn't provide much of a return unless it's large hail. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

I'd go with wheelsup's figures first. He stated 18,000-20,000' and up to 25,000'. I've always used 25,000' in the tropics. Small cumulus clouds with some water (green or even yellow) in them that are less than 25,000 feet in height do not worry me. When they are red at 25,000 feet you want to steer well clear.

The discussion so far about the center of the beam is most of what you need to know in my opinion, however, finding the tops of smaller cells when you're IMC is also useful. It's paramount in the tropics, particularly around the ICTZ. In that area, green can be severe or even extreme turbulence. I don't go through anything more than 10,000 feet thick in any part of the world if I can find it visually or with the radar. 10k thick is moderate chop and turbulence in most places. Much more than that will throw things around a bit. It's also useful if you're in cruise and want to know if you're going to top a line of weather by a safe margin. Keep in mind that much more than 100 miles out, you're dealing with the curve of the earth and calibration issues with the tilt setting you've selected.

I fly around the ICTZ a lot and do not agree with your assessment. Sure, I like to avoid everything if I can but sometimes that is not possible. I have never encountered "severe or even extreme" turbulence in a green return. In fact, in over 17,000 hours, I have not encountered extreme turbulence ever and can't really even say I've been in the technical definition of severe. Moderate for sure, but severe means:

Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Report as Severe Turbulence.

Interesting ideas on adjusting the gain. I've always left it at the maximum setting, but I can definitely see how that could be useful.

I tend to leave the gain in calibrated position 99% of the time as well. One time it can be very useful to come out of calibrated gain is when you have got yourself into a pickle and want to see which red return is really bad and which you may survive going through. In that scenario turn the gain down and you'll see the less intense red cells start to become smaller, or change to yellow, while the really intense ones remain red. Going from memory red starts at 40 dBZ. Some storms could be right at that level, while others are well above it. Using the gain can help you figure that out. Again, that is only in a worst case scenario where you get yourself surrounded by red returns and need to find a path out.


Typhoonpilot

 

[wheelsup]

The formulas are spot on, except you want to paint the 8-12,000 foot area of a storm to find it's intensity.

Interesting ideas on adjusting the gain. I've always left it at the maximum setting, but I can definitely see how that could be useful.

8,000-12,000 ft is waaaay too low especially turning the gain all the way up. I'm not even sure you'd be able to discern any useable information out of that return. Everything would look bad. Which, if your goal is to avoid everything, even rain, that's not a bad strategy, but it's important to know exactly what's safe to fly through and what isn't because there are times that is pretty much your only option.

Here's a good chart

 

[Tommay85]

Debatable, so imma debate it I guess...

20k, even in the caribbean, shows none or a green echo at best. The first picture I've attached WILL give you the high end of moderate turbulence, no question. Not just for us lighter weight turbo-trash either. I've heard enough BA and Virgin A330s, 777 and 747s report the ride through things like this as moderate and even severe turbulence that I don't doubt it. Anyone going to call a few hundred BA/Virgin pilots idiot's for reporting it as such?... Tops between 22 and 16k. Above 17k everything is either frozen (lower radar return) or supercooled (no difference), you can't discern that from the radar. If you were painting 20k, I highly doubt this would even shown up and if it did, it'd be a few pixles of green at best. I bet pax love flying through this! In addition, painting the 20k level means the lower part of your beam (the one with a lot less energy) that may or may not be painting something that is intense is now going to attenuate and possibly hide something behind the weather you're painting in front of you. Sorry, but I disagree entirely with painting the 20k level with the center of the beam.


The second image would show on a bendix and honeywell unit as green and/or yellow if you painted the 20,000 foot level. This kind of storm will damage the plane or kill you. I honestly hope I'm not on either of you two's planes if we're in a layer of clouds that obscures these things. Drink will be spilled or we're all almost killed...


I disagree with both of you about "having to go through things". That's something that is actually debatable. That's actually not a thing, unless you're an idiot. Shots fired

BTW, the AIM further defines severe turbulence as being violently forced against restraints and unsecured objects are tossed about. The first picture would toss things about and throw you into your seatbelt noticably in a 737 or A320 if you flew through it. Seen it, gave the captain grief for it later from the jumpseat afterwards. The second picture would could cause damage. Technically an SA227 is temporarily out of control every-time it lands in high winds. No risk to the structure or things being tossed about, but aileron effectiveness is over-come. The first part of the definition is a poor standard to go by depending on the airplane. Kind of like the icing definitions as they relate to aircraft with less capable systems. A rate of accumulation model/reporting system would be better, but isn't used.

Don't throw flight times or years at me, like I'm supposed to be impressed. I'd argue that you might be complacent, actually. I fly through the ICTZ and operate in the tropics everyday. I'm not saying I'm more experienced, but I do operate in the same environment and am not new to it at all at this point.

@wheelsup Where is that chart from? Is that applicable to on-board radar or ground based radar from the weather service? They adjust their gain levels as well...

I don't know what to tell you, but I've gleamed plenty of information from the 8-12k level, painting it from 18-28 thousand feet. That's ALL I or anyone at Ameriflight has every painted and not one has been struck by lightning, hit with hail, or encountered severe turbulence in the last decade when this was standardized. This is across 4 different radar units that work vastly differently. Can't say the same has been successful year after year for other companies. Who screwed up an airplane with hail in predictable weather that would have been detected had the radar been tiltet to the 8-12k foot level again? Oh yeah, Delta, the most taltented... Titles, flight time, and company worked for mean absolutely nothing to me... other than you might be an actual egotistical idiot, instead of a jokingly egotistical idiot like I am.

 

[typhoonpilot]

I guess we'll agree to disagree

Have a nice day.


TP

 

[Tommay85]

I guess we'll agree to disagree

Have a nice day.


TP

Indeed and you too, sir!

 

[Tommay85]

Disagreements aside, what is the airplane/equipment being used by@b182fly ?

It matters because if it's not a larger or newer airplane. some of the info from this thread does not apply.

Some equipment doesn't automatically stabilize for aircraft attitude. Most smaller airplanes, gain -1/+1 doesn't mean anything, nor would the "target" function.

The auto scan fuction is the best there is out there, which mimics NOAA's composite radar displays. Paints every level and depicts the most intense part it sees. I don't know which units have this specifically. I think the newer A32X is the oldest and the E1XX and most business jets have it.

 

[Tommay85]

I guess we'll agree to disagree

Have a nice day.


TP

For the purpose of providing good, conservative experience to the OP and anyone else that wants to get information from this thread. What exactly are you disagreeing with.

The first picture is going to throw things around in any airplane, at least in the tropics and Midwest. The second picture is definitely going to throw things into the ceiling and might cause damage and probably give you a lightning and/or hail strike depending on where this is encountered. By the AIM definition, that is severe. Both of which would paint as green or not show up at all on the on-board radar set to the 20k foot level, particularly during descent or climb. Both of which had maximum tops at 22k...

8-12k is the core of a developed/developing storm, fact. If you want to play around with playing around with that, that's your prerogative/future .25 percent guy I guess. Delta screwed up with this very badly last summer. If you want to be like them, keep screwing around I guess, but a "part 135 cowboy freight dog" thinks what you're doing isn't conservative...

I'm management scum, so faces get ripped off in the office over lightning strikes, hail encounters, or popped rivets/sudden fuel leaks... No excuse for any of those except for poor pre-flight planning or poor judgement. Sorry, but non of that should happen if a proper pre-flight is performed, the radar is tilted in the right area, and/or proper judgement is used. No excuses and no sympathy. Retraining/disciplinary action only.

 

[mshunter]

I'm management scum, so faces get ripped off in the office over lightning strikes, hail encounters, or popped rivets/sudden fuel leaks... No excuse for any of those except for poor pre-flight planning or poor judgement. Sorry, but non of that should happen if a proper pre-flight is performed, the radar is tilted in the right area, and/or proper judgement is used. No excuses and no sympathy. Retraining/disciplinary action only.

Yeah, that's kind of bull chit. Fuel leaks are common in the Metro, that is a fact of old tired wet winged airplanes. I never flew one that didn't leak, or had had a leak "repaired". Popped rivets, same. Lightning strikes, happen pretty frequently. And disciplinary action when something like that happens, makes guys shut the 'eff up about things. Safety is culture as much as it is being able to go to management and say " hey look, so this thing happened" and not worrying about losing your job. If there is a pattern of disregard, that's one thing. But the way you make it sound, leaves a lot to be desired.

Proof: ASAP programs. There is a reason for them. So guys will speak up about it, and get the retraining without fear of losing their jobs, getting a letter in their file, or certificate action. That's why there was a huge push a few years ago on this forum to steer guys away from KeyLime (I think it was them), because of their self disclosure policies ith the FAA (read as hanging their pilots out to dry). That's also why every airline I can think of has them. Because they have shown their value time and time again.

"Hey, we screwed up."

"Okay, let's look at what went wrong, and how to address it to help prevent it in the future."

I've filled out some ASAP's. Some for what seemed to be miniscule things. Why? So the guy behind me can learn from my mistakes, and possibly avoid repeating them.

 

[Tommay85]

Yeah, that's kind of bull chit. Fuel leaks are common in the Metro, that is a fact of old tired wet winged airplanes. I never flew one that didn't leak, or had had a leak "repaired". Popped rivets, same. Lightning strikes, happen pretty frequently. And disciplinary action when something like that happens, makes guys shut the 'eff up about things. Safety is culture as much as it is being able to go to management and say " hey look, so this thing happened" and not worrying about losing your job. If there is a pattern of disregard, that's one thing. But the way you make it sound, leaves a lot to be desired.

Proof: ASAP programs. There is a reason for them. So guys will speak up about it, and get the retraining without fear of losing their jobs, getting a letter in their file, or certificate action. That's why there was a huge push a few years ago on this forum to steer guys away from KeyLime (I think it was them), because of their self disclosure policies ith the FAA (read as hanging their pilots out to dry). That's also why every airline I can think of has them. Because they have shown their value time and time again.

"Hey, we screwed up."

"Okay, let's look at what went wrong, and how to address it to help prevent it in the future."

I've filled out some ASAP's. Some for what seemed to be miniscule things. Why? So the guy behind me can learn from my mistakes, and possibly avoid repeating them.

We have had an ASAP program for the last year and a half. I agree, it is a MASSIVE step towards improving safety. Where I work used to be exact opposite. I wish it worked internationally, but I've found that the civil aviation authorities for that country will usually work with us instead of sending reports to the FAA.

Look, I'm not going to actually "rip the guy's face off", but they're going to get a "told you so" at the very least. If their attitude is bad about it, formal verbal warning (nothing in the file yet), written warning, disciplinary action is sequence of steps to get them to fall in line.

I do explain to every new pilot that comes to the Caribbean that we carry (or should carry) 45 minutes of contingency fuel in addition to the 1 hour reserve requirement. That gets you roughly 210 miles or 270 additional miles in the Metro and E120 respectively to deviate around bad weather. There is zero reason to get struck by lightning down here. It the states with the squall lines or highly convective days that make the weather guys scratch there heads, maybe. Huge maybe.

An ASAP that reads something simple like "I didn't think I had enough fuel to deviate around the storm that resulted in a lightning strike/damage" or "I wasn't aware the weather radar wasn't functioning properly" is constructive. We can fix that. "I thought I could fly through that cell" isn't, because they didn't need to. Especially if it's the only cell in the area. It's already been hashed out through the program to carry the extra fuel.

On topic, this is a good article that was posted on here awhile ago. I can't find the thread with the discussion though.
https://airlinesafety.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/airborne-weather-avoidance/
I'll retract my previous statement about focusing on the 8-12,000 foot level, (I'm not that stubborn but I do think it's important to look in that range as well for the two examples I posted earlier that would be hidden by only painting the 20k foot level. Bottom line, getting the entire picture of a cell/line you're looking at is important.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

We have had an ASAP program for the last year and a half. I agree, it is a MASSIVE step towards improving safety. Where I work used to be exact opposite. I wish it worked internationally, but I've found that the civil aviation authorities for that country will usually work with us instead of sending reports to the FAA.

You say this, but then immediately put your company's ASAP program at great risk by writing this:

Look, I'm not going to actually "rip the guy's face off", but they're going to get a "told you so" at the very least. If their attitude is bad about it, formal verbal warning (nothing in the file yet), written warning, disciplinary action is sequence of steps to get them to fall in line.

As a management pilot I highly suggest you re-read the ASAP Advisory Circular immediately.

You are not supposed to access identified data in order to correct your crews. I could go on, but you need to read up first.

 

[Tommay85]

You say this, but then immediately put your company's ASAP program at great risk by writing this:



As a management pilot I highly suggest you re-read the ASAP Advisory Circular immediately.

You are not supposed to access identified data in order to correct your crews. I could go on, but you need to read up first.

I don't, but I work with maintenance every night and can see the squawks. My office isn't in some remote location away from the operation and due to short staffing am out on the line every day with everyone. I can see what they are or aren't supposed to be doing first hand.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

I don't, but I work with maintenance every night and can see the squawks. My office isn't in some remote location away from the operation and due to short staffing am out on the line every day with everyone. I can see what they are or aren't supposed to be doing first hand.

You can or cannot see the ASAP reports with identifying data on them? If you can't, how is your company getting "wind" of the names of the pilots who submit them so that you can "get them to fall in line?" I would highly recommend any pilots who fly for this place not file an ASAP until this is fixed. Use the NASA ASRS instead.

As I said in a previous thread, this is why unions are needed in aviation. The CPO is not the management that should be on the ASAP committee.

 

[Tommay85]

You can or cannot see the ASAP reports with identifying data on them? If you can't, how is your company getting "wind" of the names of the pilots who submit them so that you can "get them to fall in line?" I would highly recommend any pilots who fly for this place not file an ASAP until this is fixed. Use the NASA ASRS instead.

As I said in a previous thread, this is why unions are needed in aviation. The CPO is not the management that should be on the ASAP committee.

Because I am able to see them fly through bad weather or hear them on the radios not asking for deviations. Then the subsequent squawk in the aircraft logbook. In regards to lightning strikes.

Most of the operation is directly visible to me. If I see something, I am well within my boundaries to say something. I've only issued a formal verbal warning once and it was for showing up late.

I cannot see names on the ASAP reports. I've never even looked at them. The only thing I receive are SOP, GOM, and company policy updates. No idea if they're derived from the saftey department or not.

 

[mshunter]

You can or cannot see the ASAP reports with identifying data on them? If you can't, how is your company getting "wind" of the names of the pilots who submit them so that you can "get them to fall in line?" I would highly recommend any pilots who fly for this place not file an ASAP until this is fixed. Use the NASA ASRS instead.

As I said in a previous thread, this is why unions are needed in aviation. The CPO is not the management that should be on the ASAP committee.

Sounds like he can't, but the operation is small enough, and he's involved enough with it, that seeing them broken on the ramp is a nightly thing. That level of involvement is a good thing, if used properly.