IFR Avoidance

[MyassisDragon]

I had a good flight home from SC to MI yesterday and snapped some pictures while flying over the mountains. After a little reflection and looking at my Flight track I thought to myself "self this is a good example to share"

During my training I started with the impression IFR meant get in and go through the clouds in a straight line as filed. But it slowly changed during training and now I am really finding a lot of my Instrument flying this year is VFR (on ifr flight plan) dodging bad stuff.

I was flying a Tiger with WX-7 storm scope and Ipad/ADS-B weather Once above the initial layer Charlotte DEP approved requests for deviations (and concurred that it was a good idea) they also mentioned I must have on board weather so I replied ADS-B (plus I had visual on the build up or I never would have gone there).

This was good to see the weather radar and look out the window at what it looks like with lightning and extreme precipitation from a distance. I also got a chance to see how ADS-B is only for general awareness by comparing our visual track around the backside of it compared to what was on the screen. According to Foreflight we went right through the heavy returns due to the delayed radar update. This was a real eye opener. But I do have to admit the new moving radar feature really gives a better indication of what the storm is doing than the static radar.

The pictures are from down near Charlotte at 9000ft and a snap shot from flightaware.

 

[Jaybird180]

Thank you for sharing.

 

[jordane93]

Thunderstorms are bad news whether VFR or IFR

 

[Ted]

In the summer, it's definitely best to remain in VMC (whether IFR or VFR) when dealing with thunderstorms if at all possible. When you get into bigger planes that have real on-board radar (not NEXRAD/ADS-B) then that does change things a bit, but you're still best off remaining visual if you can.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

But I do have to admit the new moving radar feature really gives a better indication of what the storm is doing than the static radar.

Knowing the direction of the storms is vital IMOHO, I much rather go behind the storms then try to cross their path.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Whoa, threading the needle.

Storms look awesome from the sky (at a safe distance)

 

[MyassisDragon]

Knowing the direction of the storms is vital IMOHO, I much rather go behind the storms then try to cross their path.

Thats exactly what I did and why I did it. It was moving NE so skirted around the back of it visually to the SW. Air was quite smooth and even turned into a tailwind once I was north of it.

I was actually 1 of 3 planes making that same hole (bonanza & skyhawk also) around the same time.

ATC was very accommodating telling all of us to deviate as needed and update them with headings.

 

[EdFred]

Avoiding IFR is easy...don't file, don't talk to ATC.

Now, avoiding IMC....

 

[Zeldman]

There is nothing wrong with going IFR direct, but I find that passengers like a smooth flight, so I avoid the bumps as much as possible. I left Flagstaff one time enroute to Albuquerque. I ask for 25 degrees right and eventually was 60 degrees right of course to miss a large, single cell thunderstorm. The people that went straight through it were sure crying for a vector out of it. The controller asked me a few times how my ride was. I would reply, not smooth, but extra smooth. He quit asking me and just keep telling others that the south side was a better ride. I turned on the intercom so that the medics could hear what was going on. They could not understand why other pilots put their passengers through so much turbulence, and bought me lunch in appreciation of a safe, smooth ride.

Later on I did ask one of our competitors, which I heard on frequency going through the thunderstorm why he went straight through it. He replied that it is because dispatch requested that route to save time.

Our company is in the process of up dating to the ADS-B, but we still have the old Bendex radar from long ago. Until then I will still use them because I can get up to the second returns, unlike some of the subscription weather that can be up to 20 minutes old.

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

There is nothing wrong with going IFR direct, but I find that passengers like a smooth flight, so I avoid the bumps as much as possible. I left Flagstaff one time enroute to Albuquerque. I ask for 25 degrees right and eventually was 60 degrees right of course to miss a large, single cell thunderstorm. The people that went straight through it were sure crying for a vector out of it. The controller asked me a few times how my ride was. I would reply, not smooth, but extra smooth. He quit asking me and just keep telling others that the south side was a better ride. I turned on the intercom so that the medics could hear what was going on. They could not understand why other pilots put their passengers through so much turbulence, and bought me lunch in appreciation of a safe, smooth ride.

Later on I did ask one of our competitors, which I heard on frequency going through the thunderstorm why he went straight through it. He replied that it is because dispatch requested that route to save time.

Our company is in the process of up dating to the ADS-B, but we still have the old Bendex radar from long ago. Until then I will still use them because I can get up to the second returns, unlike some of the subscription weather that can be up to 20 minutes old.

I'll never ask for a specific heading change to deviate around weather. That will back you into a corner quickly, like you found out.

"Center, N12345 request right deviation for weather."
"N12345, right deviation is approved, advise back on course."

That's usually how it goes for me. I've never had much of an issue unless in really congested airspace.

On another note, I'll stay stay VMC if there is some build-up along my flightpath. If I won't have issues, I'll go IMC. I want to keep a visual on the storms.

 

[Bill Watson]

During my training I started with the impression IFR meant get in and go through the clouds in a straight line as filed. But it slowly changed during training and now I am really finding a lot of my Instrument flying this year is VFR (on ifr flight plan) dodging bad stuff.
This was good to see the weather radar and look out the window at what it looks like with lightning and extreme precipitation from a distance. I also got a chance to see how ADS-B is only for general awareness by comparing our visual track around the backside of it compared to what was on the screen. According to Foreflight we went right through the heavy returns due to the delayed radar update. This was a real eye opener. But I do have to admit the new moving radar feature really gives a better indication of what the storm is doing than the static radar.

Summer time IFR piston flying in the SE is all about staying visual around buildups. It's all about calibrating what you see out the window with the Nexrad images provided by ADS-B or XM.

Okay now for a bit of Nexrad heresy: I've never had or seen onboard real time radar but I'm sure it's great. However, I've been flying SEL airplanes with delayed Nexrad images since they were first available thru Cheap Bastard, then XM and now ADS-B. Conventional wisdom is that they are delayed images so they can only be used for general awareness. Or that they can't safely be used for tactical storm flying (whatever that is). I call BS!

I use it all the time to fly around and even thru storm lines. At times I fly within feet of towering cumulus buildups. I've penetrated storm lines at night. I've disagreed with ATC's suggestions and gone my own way. I've also given storm clouds many miles of respectful clearance based on what I see out the windshield and see on my 'scope'. I've also taken ATC's suggestions and thanked them profusely for keeping me out of the sh*t.

But for a light plane pilot, (delayed) looping Nexrad images are the bomb. The delay means little because it's a known factor. The looping is an added benefit because it shows movement. But the most important feature for light plane pilots during T-storm season is staying visual most of the time and never trying to penetrate active convective cells when the outcome is even remotely in doubt.

What I'm probably missing is that active convective cells are penetrated by light planes and most people live to tell about it, most of the time. I just don't play that in my little flivver.

I just don't see the time delay as a real handicap. The absence of attenuation is a real benefit as is the ability to see around corners.

NEXRAD is great!

 

[Jaybird180]

Summer time IFR piston flying in the SE is all about staying visual around buildups. It's all about calibrating what you see out the window with the Nexrad images provided by ADS-B or XM.

Okay now for a bit of Nexrad heresy: I've never had or seen onboard real time radar but I'm sure it's great. However, I've been flying SEL airplanes with delayed Nexrad images since they were first available thru Cheap Bastard, then XM and now ADS-B. Conventional wisdom is that they are delayed images so they can only be used for general awareness. Or that they can't safely be used for tactical storm flying (whatever that is). I call BS!

I use it all the time to fly around and even thru storm lines. At times I fly within feet of towering cumulus buildups. I've penetrated storm lines at night. I've disagreed with ATC's suggestions and gone my own way. I've also given storm clouds many miles of respectful clearance based on what I see out the windshield and see on my 'scope'. I've also taken ATC's suggestions and thanked them profusely for keeping me out of the sh*t.

But for a light plane pilot, (delayed) looping Nexrad images are the bomb. The delay means little because it's a known factor. The looping is an added benefit because it shows movement. But the most important feature for light plane pilots during T-storm season is staying visual most of the time and never trying to penetrate active convective cells when the outcome is even remotely in doubt.

What I'm probably missing is that active convective cells are penetrated by light planes and most people live to tell about it, most of the time. I just don't play that in my little flivver.

I just don't see the time delay as a real handicap. The absence of attenuation is a real benefit as is the ability to see around corners.

NEXRAD is great!

 

[gismo]

Summer time IFR piston flying in the SE is all about staying visual around buildups. It's all about calibrating what you see out the window with the Nexrad images provided by ADS-B or XM.

Okay now for a bit of Nexrad heresy: I've never had or seen onboard real time radar but I'm sure it's great. However, I've been flying SEL airplanes with delayed Nexrad images since they were first available thru Cheap Bastard, then XM and now ADS-B. Conventional wisdom is that they are delayed images so they can only be used for general awareness. Or that they can't safely be used for tactical storm flying (whatever that is). I call BS!

I use it all the time to fly around and even thru storm lines. At times I fly within feet of towering cumulus buildups. I've penetrated storm lines at night. I've disagreed with ATC's suggestions and gone my own way. I've also given storm clouds many miles of respectful clearance based on what I see out the windshield and see on my 'scope'. I've also taken ATC's suggestions and thanked them profusely for keeping me out of the sh*t.

But for a light plane pilot, (delayed) looping Nexrad images are the bomb. The delay means little because it's a known factor. The looping is an added benefit because it shows movement. But the most important feature for light plane pilots during T-storm season is staying visual most of the time and never trying to penetrate active convective cells when the outcome is even remotely in doubt.

What I'm probably missing is that active convective cells are penetrated by light planes and most people live to tell about it, most of the time. I just don't play that in my little flivver.

I just don't see the time delay as a real handicap. The absence of attenuation is a real benefit as is the ability to see around corners.

NEXRAD is great!

I have NEXRAD (XM), a stormscope, and onboard radar. There are plenty of times when they all agree but I've also encountered several instances where the NEXRAD was indicating a gap where the onboard stuff clearly said otherwise. That said I've never seen the discrepancy greater than about 10 nm so if you remain at least 15nm from anything ugly on NEXRAD you ought to be OK unless something builds quickly in what appears to be a clear area on NEXRAD.

 

[Bill Watson]

So today I pick up AOPA Pilot magazine and see this:
Datalink Dangers

But it's nothing of the kind. Thomas Horne recounts a flight from FL to MD with a stop in Florence. There's a line of storms he believes he will beat into Florence but alas, he gets a bit tumbled, "It was all so subtle. My inadvertent thunderstorm penetration took place so slowly that it didn’t fulfill my preconceived notion of a thunderstorm encounter—meaning one minute you’re OK, the next minute you’re deep in chaos."

I'm thinking, "okay, you inadvertently flew into an active thunderstorm. I guess Nexrad lied to you, or at least was so time lagged that it led you into a line of storms that was moving and building faster than what you could see on Nexrad, right?"

No, he goes on to say, "That flight took place in 1984, but an inadvertent thunderstorm encounter like that could easily happen today, even though cockpit technology has progressed by leaps and bounds in the intervening 30 years. Think about it. Datalink weather providers such as WxWorx’s XMWX, WSI InFlight, and the government’s Flight Information Services-Broadcast (FIS-B) service provide detailed Nexrad imagery—but that information can be up to 20 minutes old by the time it reaches you. Long enough to trick you into thinking you’re flying at a safe distance from convection, when you actually could be entering zones of the highest, most dangerous areas of precipitation reflectivity."

I call BS. That's just magazine filler. Proper use and interpretation of Nexrad images from the time you took off in FL until reached the Florence area would have told you that you weren't going to beat the line and it was time to switch to plan B. Heck, I thought that what downtown SAV was for. A nice dinner and hotel room before finishing a typical SE US flight.

Why has the conventional wisdom become that Nexrad images can't be used reliably to navigate around storms? I thinks it's the best tool for light plane pilots to use to navigate around storms. Better than ATC radar, better than Stormscopes, better than even onboard radar (especially because most light aircraft can't carry a good onboard radar system).

It has limitations but it also has advantages. The biggest one being that you can sit and stare at a line of storms for 2 hours, 300 miles away. You can watch how it builds, moves, and dissipates. You can see it from all sides. And you can easily account for the fact that the images you are seeing are 20 mins old.

I'm probably overstating my case but I'm so GD tired of writers understating the case for Nexrad. It's great!

 

[Brad Z]

It has limitations but it also has advantages. The biggest one being that you can sit and stare at a line of storms for 2 hours, 300 miles away. You can watch how it builds, moves, and dissipates. You can see it from all sides. And you can easily account for the fact that the images you are seeing are 20 mins old.

What you're describing is strategic analysis of the weather system. What you don't want to be doing is flying in solid IMC with embedded thunderstorms trying to shoot a gap of heavy convective activity you can't see with your own eyeballs.

 

[Bill Watson]

.... What you don't want to be doing is flying in solid IMC with embedded thunderstorms trying to shoot a gap of heavy convective activity you can't see with your own eyeballs.

I'm never quite sure what is meant by 'strategic analysis' but I agree with the above absolutely.

My take is this; for those of us perpetually stuck below 18k, or even 12k, without onboard weather equipment, IFR flight occasionally led many of us to fly in solid IMC where our best available information indicated that we would not encounter the heavy convective activity that we in fact found. That is what happened in the pre-Nexrad days to the writer in Datalink Dangers. A version of it happened to me back in the day. Once you took off without onboard radar or a Stormscope, the strategic analysis portion of your flight was over except for inflight tactical help from ATC and FSS.

With Nexrad onboard, I am no longer tempted to fly in solid IMC where heavy convective activity is a possibility. Since Nexrad imagery has become available, getting to my destination just doesn't require it. Pre-Nexrad, things were different unless you were hauling a radar system or possibly a Stormscope. Fact is, IFR people got bounced around a bit more than many desired.

Prudence doesn't require some blind avoidance of convective cells by 15 or 20 miles, it does require learning the advantages and limitations of that imagery and staying visual when around the active stuff. If you can't do that, prudence may require plan B or C but more often than not, you can get there.

 

[RickG]

AOPA Safety Institute has an accident case study on this very topic:

http://flash.aopa.org/asf/acs_timelapse/index.cfm

Time Lapse

One of the great advances in general aviation in recent years has been the widespread availability of datalink weather. Like any technology, though, it can be used improperly. Come along as we examine a tragic accident that highlights an important and often-overlooked limitation of datalink radar.
Approx. 12 minute

 

[Hawka]

I'm never quite sure what is meant by 'strategic analysis' but I agree with the above absolutely.

My take is this; for those of us perpetually stuck below 18k, or even 12k, without onboard weather equipment, IFR flight occasionally led many of us to fly in solid IMC where our best available information indicated that we would not encounter the heavy convective activity that we in fact found. That is what happened in the pre-Nexrad days to the writer in Datalink Dangers. A version of it happened to me back in the day. Once you took off without onboard radar or a Stormscope, the strategic analysis portion of your flight was over except for inflight tactical help from ATC and FSS.

With Nexrad onboard, I am no longer tempted to fly in solid IMC where heavy convective activity is a possibility. Since Nexrad imagery has become available, getting to my destination just doesn't require it. Pre-Nexrad, things were different unless you were hauling a radar system or possibly a Stormscope. Fact is, IFR people got bounced around a bit more than many desired.

Prudence doesn't require some blind avoidance of convective cells by 15 or 20 miles, it does require learning the advantages and limitations of that imagery and staying visual when around the active stuff. If you can't do that, prudence may require plan B or C but more often than not, you can get there.

Nexrad is great for the "big picture" but I wouldn't use it to get closer than maybe 50 nm if you're using it to work around weather. I'm always interested in how up to date Nexrad is so often will compare it with what I'm seeing on my weather radar. It is usually fairly close but I have often seen some intense precip in an area that is not even shown on Nexrad and vice versa. The time delay you see associated with the nexrad data is bogus too I've seen discrepancies even when it says that data is only a minute old.

 

[Bill Watson]

AOPA Safety Institute has an accident case study on this very topic:

http://flash.aopa.org/asf/acs_timelapse/index.cfm

Time Lapse

Well, that's about as on target as it gets. A great case study with an excellent analysis. That's a situation I'd give a very wide berth and in all likelihood turn away from and land. Get-home-itis can and did kill in that situation.

The imagery delay factor is a given. So is the fact that it's night. The big warning flag is 'fast moving line'. Quickly moving, fast developing lines and Nexrad delays don't mix easily. Night removes most of the advantage of staying visual outside of the storm. I can imagine that even onboard radar might have a hard time with a fast moving/developing line of storms flying in a slow airplane but I have no experience there and can't say.

Nexrad is great for the "big picture" but I wouldn't use it to get closer than maybe 50 nm if you're using it to work around weather. I'm always interested in how up to date Nexrad is so often will compare it with what I'm seeing on my weather radar. It is usually fairly close but I have often seen some intense precip in an area that is not even shown on Nexrad and vice versa. The time delay you see associated with the nexrad data is bogus too I've seen discrepancies even when it says that data is only a minute old.

Frankly, giving weather a 50 mile wide berth means I wouldn't get anywhere in my old Maule. That doesn't mean I would fish around in solid IMC within 50 miles of significant storms, it just means that if I can stay in daylight visual conditions and properly calibrate my Nexrad with my eyeballs, I'm willing to get much closer in many situations. I'm also willing to cross gaps in certain situations.. but not the one in the Safety Briefing above.

In June's Flying Magazine, Editor in Chief Robert Goyer wrote a piece titled "Fatal Accidents Down Sharply" and asks "Have we turned a corner on safety" where he notes that the GA accident rate were down sharply in the first 6 months of fiscal 2014. The cause is not clear but he and others suggested all this advanced tech in the cockpit may have something to do with it.

That piece is followed by a piece, "Summer Storms Strategized" where he talks about a flight made possible by Nexrad imagery. Can't find a link to the magazine pieces but apparently a long form blog of "Summer Storms" is here, Thunderstorms and False Dilemmas
Reading it now....

 

[tsts4]

Nexrad is great for the "big picture" but I wouldn't use it to get closer than maybe 50 nm if you're using it to work around weather. I'm always interested in how up to date Nexrad is so often will compare it with what I'm seeing on my weather radar. It is usually fairly close but I have often seen some intense precip in an area that is not even shown on Nexrad and vice versa. The time delay you see associated with the nexrad data is bogus too I've seen discrepancies even when it says that data is only a minute old.

There’s 2 time delays associated with NEXRAD – the data compilation delay which is between 6 and 10 minutes, and the transmission cycle which is 5 min. That means depending on how the compilation and transmission cycles line up, the image can be anwhere from 6 to 15 mins old. The date stamp on the image is when it was transmitted and not when it was compiled so in the cockpit you don’t know exactly how old the image is.

 

[Alexb2000]

Here is a flight I just recently did:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9025F

West Texas on a bad day is suicidal for light aircraft. That day was normal, but it doesn't mean there aren't dragons in those clouds.

I have stormscope, but with dry weather CB's it falses all the time. I was seeing strikes 100 miles out from the storms. I've seen this many times before and you just kind of ignore the individual strikes and look for clusters.

Nexrad is terrible at depicting IFR conditions. That trip was ALL IFR. I was in and out of the towers at 17-19K, below me was solid to about 6K. With dryer systems the moisture content doesn't seem to reflect well and Nexrad will show clear. This seems to be true often in the Southwest. I have flown entire trips in the clouds with nothing on radar.

Nexrad returns are terrible predictors of icing. On that trip just at the Eastern edge of the yellow I got some rapidly accumulating rime ice for a few minutes in an updraft. I didn't really expect that much moisture on the edge, but there it was.

I cross these storm systems all the time. They are often too large to go around and their frequency means I just have to deal with it. Waiting until tomorrow often just means more of the same.

I agree with Ted's comments. Get visual even if for a few minutes and look around, don't just sit at an altitude that is solid IMC. Get a block and use it to catch some glimpses of the system.

Zig zag around all the heavy stuff you can, I handle this by just telling ATC I'm going to be zig-zagging a lot crossing this line vs. asking each time and waiting for approval.

I also visually match up the window view to Nexrad. Lacking a good onboard, this is A LOT better than nothing. I remember having nothing and I think I would quit flying IFR if I had to go back.

Sometimes West Texas style storms don't have huge vertical development (maybe 30K), that doesn't mean they don't have a lot to offer. I try to see the gut of the storm and if it is really dark, raining, lighting, then I avoid even if the tops are fluffy white. Those can really surprise you, I've had 2000 ft. per minute drafts in those even without the tall verticals.

Another huge factor is experience with the weather pattern you're flying. I have crossed hundreds of West Texas storms, but I was lost in FL. This is part of the disagreements we have on POA, weather one place isn't the same as weather in another. When I am out of my element, I am very conservative.

 

[Bill Watson]

Another huge factor is experience with the weather pattern you're flying. I have crossed hundreds of West Texas storms, but I was lost in FL. This is part of the disagreements we have on POA, weather one place isn't the same as weather in another. When I am out of my element, I am very conservative.

Agreed. Weather really is different around the country and coping with it requires some familiarity.

West of the Appalachians, I'm getting out of my element. West of the Mississippi and I'm all learning curve.