Never trust your XM-based satellite weather

Is this an XM issue or a WxWorx issue? I flew this past Saturday in the Atlanta area where that storm line was before getting to you.

I used it to help plot out my course around the boomers...and it was dead-arse accurate. What I saw out the window jived 100% (well given a 5-10 minute lag) accurate.

So far, in the year I have had it, it has never been anything but accurate within the lag period.
 
Scott that was just a fantastic post! Thanks for the info. This is something I really would never have known if It weren't posted. Great info.
 
scottd said:
XM is just a pipe. This is definitely a WxWorx filter that was applied a bit too long...I'll bet Dr. Bruce's paycheck on it. I agree, normally they do a rock-solid job, but stuff happens!
Click to expand...

I think I experienced something similar several months ago but never bothered to figure out the cause. I know the most senior technical person at XM who's also a pilot. I think he'd be interested in this information. I'll PM his email to you.
 
very interesting, and equally scary. thanks scott!
 
Awesome post! Thanks for the heads-up! I've flown behind the 496 weather enough to realize that while XM Weather is good for dodging lines of storms, it is DEFINITELY not to be used for picking ones way THROUGH a line of storms. This post widens my 'stay away' filter even more.
 
This is analogous to the guy on the red board (he says he's a CFI) talking about OROCA off routes and saying, "oh, they're on my 530....."

Too many gizmos. Too little airmanship.
"BUT IT WAS CLEAR ON MY SCREEN!"
sigh.
 
That's disturbing.

Of course, there is some redundancy of information. WxWorx/XM would also provide lightning data and "storm cell" data.

And if you had some real-time source of data, either eyeballs or stormscope or radar, as you're "supposed to", then the risk of bad WxWorx data is roughly limited to "hey, we can't go there, but I thought we would be able to, so our evasion of that bad stuff will be quite inefficient, since we weren't able to plan it well before getting here".
-harry
 
I've had questions before about how fast the system updates. This also applies to TIS so many place far too much trust in.

Unless you have airborne radar, you're no better off than the FSS briefer who has to wait some amount of time for the feed. Well, there is the rather useful tool of actually looking for routes well away from convective activity.
 
bbchien said:
This is analogous to the guy on the red board (he says he's a CFI) talking about OROCA off routes and saying, "oh, they're on my 530....."

Too many gizmos. Too little airmanship.
"BUT IT WAS CLEAR ON MY SCREEN!"
sigh.
Click to expand...

Positively, absolutely correct.

I had a ridiculously long and eventually unfruitful thread on the usenet pilot group on this very topic. One of the posters proudly stated that XM made weather "easy" and VFR flying safer.

I countered that the display does not absolve a pilot of the need to do his/her best to understand why weather was unfolding as expected or not expected. The pilot should have the weather "picture" in his/her mind, and be able to predict the changes, rates of changes, and the impact of those changes on the flight.


XM will help adjust that picture, and should help a well-prepared pilot acquire the skill more rapidly IF the pilot takes the approach "I should know what to expect given the known conditions" and not rely on XM -- especially VFR!

XM -- as GPS -- should simply confirm what you already know or suspect.

I used to think XM's greatest value to the IFR pilot was the display of embedded cells. After reading the OP I'm starting to wonder...
 
Last edited:
I use WxWorx (on a tablet PC, not a 496).... I also have a stormscope.

WxWorx is a tool, and nothing more. It does have lightning strikes, and you can turn on county warning messages, which would give additional data. The cloud tops is an additional resource and tool. Latency is an issue, as is the filtering that Scott discusses.

WxW is not perfect, but it is another tool. I'd rather have it than not.
 
Sorry for the thread creep, but has anyone else had trouble with getting winds aloft lately? I've been on flights as long as 1:15 (last Sunday) and never gotten the first winds aloft upload.
 
As always, these systems are real good at telling you where not to go, but not 100% reliable on telling you where it's safe to go.
 
The weather system that produced the convection in the east over the weekend (including Monday) was filled with intense cells with little or no lightning.
Click to expand...
That raises a "big question" I've always had in terms of flying with an XM + strikefinder combo. If I see heavy precipitation via radar, but there's no lightning, what does that suggest about the possibility of severe turbulence?

I've generally used both as indications not to go there (as in, if either condition exists, then stay away), but I've always wondered whether that's too conservative, and if a lack of lightning is suggestive of a lack of severe turbulence.

If I see a cell with heavy precip, and high tops, but no lightning, what might I conclude differently as compared to a similar cell that shows lightning?
-harry
 
In my opinion, datalink weather (particularly the nexrad) is strategic, not tactical, and shouldn't be used for making decisions about the next 50 miles of flight in a 150 knot airplane. It should be used for making decisions of what you might want to do in the 100-200 miles ahead.

Only onboard radar and onboard sferics devices like a storm scope are real-time and should be used tactically (with a good understanding of their limits). I had very good results in the days before XM with a good briefing, look at radar on the ground to plot a flight plan, and then using a stormscope to confirm/alter my plan. I got very wet but never got any significant bumps doing this. Sometimes I had to retreat and land to get a better plan on the ground when my planned path was covered by X's on the stormscope, but that's the price you pay for flying in weather instead of above it.
 
scottd said:
Absolutely Bill. Satellite weather is not something that is in the private or instrument syllabi nor is it required to know for a BFR or IPC. As a result, there's no requirement for any pilot to understand how to use the products within their intrinsic limitations even though many are using it as an integral part of their aeronautical decision making (ADM).
Click to expand...

(on soapbox)

So? Since when do we have to remove all accountability and judgement from pilots? Since when do we need to dumb things down - or ban potentially valuable tools from the cockpit - because it's not in the syllabi, BFR or IPC?

Frankly, I don't want to see it mandated by the FAA. We have too many blasted rules "to protect us" to start with.

The whole point of the training and education process is to give the pilot tools needed to make good judgements. In return, the pilot is accountable. A pilot has a responsibility to learn... a license is the minimum standard. Example: I have no ADF in my plane. NDBs are disappearing regularly. There are only a couple of ADF-defined routes left. Why should I spend a lot of time training or retraining in ADF usage? Don't I have the responsibility as a pilot to obtain appropriate training in the unlikely event that I acquire an adf unit?

(off soapbox)

When I do instrument training (or transition training to an aircraft with panel-mounted weather) I do like to spend some time educating them on this issue as well as several other important open manholes a pilot could easily fall into. We certainly don't want to discover these the hard way.
Click to expand...

Good for you, and great for pilots to learn new things, but material is only retained through use. Since each system is different (and I'd expect that any data provided though ADS-B would be different from WxW), the responsibility falls on a pilot to learn (through training, book learning, and/or practical use) in a safe manner (meaning that heads-down in a cockpit is not really appropriate as it compromises safety).

Moreover, there's not much out there in any training text that describes these "features." And certainly WxWorx or WSI isn't going to be too forthcoming to show any known "weaknesses." So I spent $500 or $600 to fly down there and visit and talk to them face to face - to learn more about how they build the product that we use so readily. This led me down the road to many discoveries that I can now pass onto my students.
Click to expand...

And I agree that the information should be out there. I'm a big fan of disclosure and personal responsibility, as opposed to force-feed of material that a pilot may not need to remove accountability.

/rant over.
 
wsuffa said:
(on soapbox)
So? Since when do we have to remove all accountability and judgement from pilots? Since when do we need to dumb things down - or ban potentially valuable tools from the cockpit - because it's not in the syllabi, BFR or IPC?
Click to expand...

Isn't a fundamental assumption of the PTS system that is is a baseline minimum?

IMHO "Staying alive" is plenty more motivating than "passing a test."
 
mantakos said:
That raises a "big question" I've always had in terms of flying with an XM + strikefinder combo. If I see heavy precipitation via radar, but there's no lightning, what does that suggest about the possibility of severe turbulence?

I've generally used both as indications not to go there (as in, if either condition exists, then stay away), but I've always wondered whether that's too conservative, and if a lack of lightning is suggestive of a lack of severe turbulence.

If I see a cell with heavy precip, and high tops, but no lightning, what might I conclude differently as compared to a similar cell that shows lightning?
-harry
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can "see" a cell without onboard radar, at least not in any way that's useful for you to avoid that cell (as opposed to avoiding the entire area, which XM radar can let you do).

I still see XM weather as good for the 100-200 mile zone, strikefinder good for avoiding stuff that's still 15-100 miles away , and only onboard radar or eyeballs is decent for 15 nm and closer, if you want to really minimize your risk of turbulence.

Maybe I'm too conservative, but I don't want to be flying into convective activity (lightning or not) in a light airplane unless I can thread the clouds visually, either above, around, or below. It's easier to land and wait.
 
scottd said:
:eek: Sorry to hit a sore spot Bill...I wasn't suggesting in any way that we add more rules...just access to a more up-to-date training materials. The PTS references the various handbooks and advisory circulars which are required reading. It would be nice to see some literature that outlines satellite weather capabilities.



Sure, if you fly an airplane with an ADF, it would be a good idea to learn how to use it. Same with a Stormscope, HSI, GPS, etc. The FAA has provided a fair amount of reading material on how to use an ADF, HSI and GPS...but where does a pilot go to learn how to use a Stormscope properly? Read the manual? Yeah, right. Your instrument flight instructor? Maybe, but unlikely.
Click to expand...

I may have overreacted a bit, but I see too much of a trend of making something a requirement, as opposed to providing resources. Judgement is sorely lacking in the political process, and the FAA is - when you get down to it - a political animal.

From my standpoint, it's not the FAA's place to provide the resources themselves. That we have a multitude of books is a good thing (from the standpoint of cheap resources), but I don't see it as the FAA's place to provide books on everything.... any more than it's the DMV's responsibility to provide instructional material on how to use a GPS in your car. I have mixed feelings on the FAA requiring detailed instructions on optional cockpit material (probably shouldn't for a handheld GPS or walkie-talkie - probably should for key panel equipment). But that's my opinion.

You gotta start somewhere. That's why when I do instrument instruction, I also provide my own forum for follow-up questions and I continue to mentor the student even beyond the checkride.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad you're doing that. There are many who don't. Helping folks develop judgement is sorely needed.

At the same time, there are instructors that are overbearing. I nearly threw one out of my plane one time because - as we were taxiing out - he took it upon himself to reset my Garmin 430 to heading up, auto-zoom, where I use north-up, fixed zoom as a matter of habit. He did this without mentioning it to me, and it really was a problem to look over and see that he was changing the normal setup. His excuse: "Well, I think you should be using this configuration because I think it's better." You know what? I know about the capabilities of the unit, and I strongly prefer "north up". It's distracting to change at the start of an IPC, especially without warning.

Can you imagine what would happen if FAA material expressed a preference for "heading up"?

We did have a bit of a discussion over that - and the meaning of "PIC".

But, done right, I wouldn't mind the FAA providing some material. I just don't see how they can ever get it right in the face of innovation and their imbedded lack of staffing.

Each system will likely have its quirks, but I suspect there are more things in common than different. Of course, it's not the buttonology that's elusive, its the practical use of the equipment that is generally missing from the training, books, etc. Moreover, it extends beyond just the equipment itself. Understanding the "environment" is really the most important element. This environment could mean the IFR system, weather, ATC system, powerplant, avionics, etc.
Click to expand...

In the end, that's what makes forums like this very valuable, and the ability to "stickey" posts like yours makes the material easy to get ahold of.

Thanks so much for the information you provide - my ire is not directed at you, it's directed toward a huge bureaucracy that wants to nanny us.....
 
Last edited:
Educate me...is WxWork the actual weather product and it is just piped by XM? In other words is WxWork what I see on my 496?

The reason I ask is that in over a year I have never had an issue.

BTW...people can talk about the "Mark I eyeball" all the want...it is SEVERELY limited in summer T-storm activity, at least in the SE and at best gives you a tactical, 5-10 mile range. Not a lot if you ask me.

Strategic is how XM Weather should be used, but define strategic. For me it IS the 25-100 mile range. Sorry but moving along at 150 miles per hour that is anywhere from 10-40 minutes of advanced notice. Depending on how fast the cells are moving that is PLENTY oh-time.

Now trying to dig through a t-storm in "real time" is NOT what the weather is for, but to tell someone to not use it looking at weather 20 minutes out is silly.
 
scottd said:
I could always wait for someone to write a book (I'm doing that myself) on subjects like this, but you can't always find resources for aviators at a sufficient detail to be useful...otherwise the FAA could all point us to Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

IMHO, and only IMHO, writing a book is the right thing to do. I'd venture that you have a lot more expertise in this area than any of the folks on Independence Ave.

Guilty as charged Bill. :rofl: I do that all of the time with my students...but, I am normally not changing things without first telling the student why and I always tell them I will set it back after the lesson...I know how "personal" these settings are to some pilots.

Most instructors don't know what you don't know. But I do let my instructors teach me. In the end, I may not agree with their methods, but I like to be open-minded...that's when I can really learn.
Click to expand...

I like to be open minded too, the real problem is that it needed to be discussed beforehand - not by simply saying "do as I say". No need to do it in the plane without warning just before takeoff.

Maybe I'm from the wrong place, but I see the instruction process (particularly as an experienced pilot) as an interactive forum where both should communicate and learn. I had a great conversation with a DPE regarding the Washington ADIZ (I was in Texas at the time, but was a regular flyer into the DC area) and turns in a circling approach. We both went back and did some research.

Or maybe I'm just one with inherent curiousity about things that spends time to research....

Or perhaps I just believe that the pilots body of experience should be evaluated and taken into account by the instructor - an IPC is not just about what I don't know, it's about what I do know and how well I know it.

No, but I could imagine them discussing the advantages and disavantages of heading up vs track up. That would be useful. I'm a person that must rotate the map in the direction I'm heading, but I know pilots who can fly south with the map in north up. That's not the way my mind thinks, but I can certainly appreciate those that do.
Click to expand...

Had it been a discussion, that would have been fine. In the end, for me, I can't fly a map track-up.... I can't drive a map track up... I find it more situationally aware to have it north up (I also don't turn approach plates, either). But that's really a different discussion....

Thanks. I always appreciate the conversation...it makes me think and I often get good ideas for future articles...the more controversy, the better.
Click to expand...

Thank you, too - despite my posturing.... it's been a long week already dealing with regulators/"authorities".
 
Last edited:
tdager said:
Educate me...is WxWork the actual weather product and it is just piped by XM? In other words is WxWork what I see on my 496?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The following is from www.garmin.com under 496:

Make informed decisions based on weather and traffic with optional sensors and services. With a subscription to XM WX Satellite Weather™ and the included GXM 30A smart antenna, you’ll have access to constantly-updated, high-resolution weather data for the U.S, right in the cockpit. Weather information includes Next Generation Radar (NEXRAD), Aviation Routine Weather Reports (METARs), Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts (TAFs), Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), Lightning and Winds Aloft and can be laid directly over the 496’s Jeppesen and topographic map databases. With an additional monthly service fee, GXM 30A delivers XM Satellite Radio to your aircraft. Add a Garmin Mode S transponder, and the 496 will also display TIS traffic alerts that identify surrounding air traffic.
Click to expand...

If you go to the XM link, you'll see no mention of WxWorks.

I have seen delays and slow updates for winds, echo tops, and METARS, but that's rare.
 
I believe WXWorks makes hardware that will receive the XM weather data stream and feed it to certain devices, like tablet PCs or other Electronic Flight Bags. I don't think they're involved on the supply side of the processes.
 
Someone asked about winds aloft a few posts back and I have the same question -- did XM drop Winds Aloft?
 
scottd said:
I define strategic as staying visual. If I'm completely visual, I have no issue flying within a few miles of a large cell. If it is a small cell, I feel totally comfortable being a little closer. But I won't penetrate into IMC to squeeze between two cells or a line of cells. At that point I cannot separate myself between the clouds producing the bumps and those that are not.
Click to expand...

That's the key. If I'm visual - strategic is 25 NM and out. If I'm not, then strategic and XM tells me what wide areas to avoid (100 NM out or more ) until I AM visual.
 
YOINKS. Scary. I've seen stuff that doesn't square with the NEXRAD before, but this is extreme. I guess I'm glad I have the Stormscope along for a second opinion. Thanks, Scott.
 
Thanks for the insights everyone!

I am not IFR...so most of my flying is below 10K simply because I usually cannot get above the weather!

So in the end...is this a problem I might experience on my 496 or not? As I stated, to-date I have not had any issues.
 
scottd said:
Yes. It is an issue for anyone who uses an XM-based satellite weather unit (which includes the Garmin 496). The filtering is occurring at the WxWorx facility before it is sent to your XM receiver. You probably haven't just noticed it yet. In my case, it happened twice in the same day.
Click to expand...

So WxWorx provides the data for the Garmin 496??
 
Just tagging on w/a few data points.

1. I use my 396 weather more on the ground than I do in the sky. Being in construction, weather is my life. What's on my GPS is ALWAYS at least 15 to 20 minutes behind reality. When the GPS shows a storm approaching, in reality it's already been gone for about 10 to 15 minutes.

2. You're flying along, and when really need it, when things are really starting to get dicey, it quits updating. Maybe I'm paranoid but this seems to happen more often than not.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
2. You're flying along, and when really need it, when things are really starting to get dicey, it quits updating. Maybe I'm paranoid but this seems to happen more often than not.
Click to expand...

Happened to us today with a G496 (First time using it in the C205).

As soon as we started approaching scattered showers and buildups "SATELLITE SIGNAL LOST" along with the XM.

Back to Flight Watch and Mark 1 Eyeballs (Student VFR XC).
 
timwinters said:
I use my 396 weather more on the ground than I do in the sky. Being in construction, weather is my life. What's on my GPS is ALWAYS at least 15 to 20 minutes behind reality. When the GPS shows a storm approaching, in reality it's already been gone for about 10 to 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
My experience with weather on a 396 is pretty limited (one flight). Last year on the return flight from Gastons I zig-zagged myself around several storms. What I saw on the display was exactly what I saw outside. I would not have made it home that Monday without XM.

XM weather isn't perfect. But it does give me the ability to make intelligent weather decisions on a long flight. Without XM weather I must land and look at radar. With the 396 I can adjust my course from a distance and avoid it all together.
 
Scott,

What is the status of your "conversation" with WxWorx regarding their filtering? Just curious.

marc
 
Thunderstorm avoidance is a great topic.

Yesterday, I got my first practice at it. Thankfully, it wasn't really bad (if it was, we would've stayed on the ground) and I had my instructor with me on the flight out. It was bad enough that most GA people were on the ground.

The method we used was to stay high (relatively, we were at 8,000) so we could be above most of the stuff that was benign, and see the stuff with extensive vertical development. Indeed, tops were at FL390. We found holes visually and flew through those. We were able to see a good ways out where we needed to go, and adjust our headings accordingly, making adjustments early. The StormScope verified what we saw visually, which was comforting. ATC worked with us to give ideas about what was ahead, and relayed information that planes with radar were sharing.

Although it was an IFR flight, we only spent about 5 minutes in IMC, if that, for a flight that was 2:45. We dodged the cells, and remained in VMC. Had we gone into IMC for significant periods, we may have inadvertently ended up in a cell.

The flight back, things had broken up some. My instructor was no longer in the plane, but a pilot friend of mine was with me. For this, we climbed even higher (11,500), where we were above all of the benign stuff, and had a great view of the cells that we wanted to avoid. Once again, we received help from ATC and FlightWatch on updates for where cells were. We were able to navigate our way through the cells, in 100% VMC, and ended up on the other side of them.

I commend ATC for their excellent help and cooperation yesterday, and thanked them for it as I was handed off. Even as a VFR flight, we didn't get a single "unable" from them. Despite all the other traffic they had to deal with, everyone was helpful. We had a storm scope, but no XM or RADAR on this plane. Flying home from KGRR to KIPT, we had a single squawk code from wheels up to wheels down, and were never told "Try [whoever] on [whatever] in 10 miles."

I have extremely limited experience with XM, but to me it is just another tool. No single tool should be relied on, it's a matter of using all the tools available to you in order to make a safe flight. The EyeDAR is probably a tool that is not used enough.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The EyeDAR is probably a tool that is not used enough.
Click to expand...

You nailed it when you said if you were in IMC you may have blundered into a cell -- or at least been roughed up a bit.

XM, Stormscope, on board radar, calls to FSS -- all supplement your own expectations regarding conditions. But very often the view out the window is blank, thus the reliance on other weather data sources.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Had we gone into IMC for significant periods, we may have inadvertently ended up in a cell.
Click to expand...
Yes! Embedded TS make for a no go item!
Ted DuPuis said:
I commend ATC for their excellent help and cooperation yesterday, and thanked them for it as I was handed off. Even as a VFR flight, we didn't get a single "unable" from them. Despite all the other traffic they had to deal with, everyone was helpful. We had a storm scope, but no XM or RADAR on this plane. Flying home from KGRR to KIPT, we had a single squawk code from wheels up to wheels down, and were never told "Try [whoever] on [whatever] in 10 miles."
Click to expand...
The fact that you were at 10,500 probably helped, since you were probably talking to Center rather than the various Approaches.
Ted DuPuis said:
I have extremely limited experience with XM, but to me it is just another tool. No single tool should be relied on, it's a matter of using all the tools available to you in order to make a safe flight. The EyeDAR is probably a tool that is not used enough.
Click to expand...
Yes!
 
dmccormack said:
XM, Stormscope, on board radar, calls to FSS -- all supplement your own expectations regarding conditions. But very often the view out the window is blank, thus the reliance on other weather data sources.
Click to expand...

Yep, but yesterday was a day where if that had happened, we probably would have turned around, assuming it was before we went into the thunderstorm and it got to the point of "Ok, time to keep the plane straight and level, and stop worrying about anything else."

gprellwitz said:
The fact that you were at 10,500 probably helped, since you were probably talking to Center rather than the various Approaches.
Click to expand...

We had a bit of both. The way we started out was by climbing in 2000 ft increments doing 5500, then 7500, then 9500, and then decided to go for the big 11,500 seeing the clouds. We were at 11,500 by Detroit, but were still on Detroit Approach. After that, it was Cleveland Center and then NY Center. However we didn't actually get close enough to Cleveland to get Cleveland approach, I think, we stayed reasonably far north due to a cell that was directly over Cleveland.

scottd said:
Very nice job. Staying high and visual is an excellent strategy that I employ on every flight when convection is lurking. Having satellite weather is just a way to start to thinking about the appropriate course of action and allowing you to start to compare what you see outside of the cockpit. Being down low keeps you in the bumps, poor vis, IMC and doesn't allow you to compare what you see against the satellite image and/or Stormscope.
Click to expand...

I certainly saw the value of being up high yesterday! On the way out we probably should have gone for 10 or 12 instead of 8, but we made it, so that is what counts. If I was by myself, I would have gone higher to see better.

There is a similar thread on another forum about the number of wrecks caused by people flying into thunderstorms inadvertently and their planes breaking up. The same method was advocated there. Seeing sure helps. It seems there are plenty of IMC situations when you aren't in a thunderstorm and there aren't thunderstorms around. Those are better. The thunderstorms yesterday were such that the commercial jets were taking the same route we were (that is part of how we got the routing). XM would've been a nice addition to have, but I believe the other tools we used were far more valuable.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
XM would've been a nice addition to have, but I believe the other tools we used were far more valuable.
Click to expand...

I dunno... Stormscope on it's own only shows you lightning. Yet NEXRAD shows precip intensity, and gradient (how close green to yellow to red is) which indicates probable severe turbulence.

Both combined give an excellent picture, especially when you're in the soup and no way of visually choosing a way around.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yep, but yesterday was a day where if that had happened, we probably would have turned around, assuming it was before we went into the thunderstorm and it got to the point of "Ok, time to keep the plane straight and level, and stop worrying about anything else."
Click to expand...

Ted - good learning experience. I strongly advocate remaining high enough to see the development. Out west (AZ/NM/parts of Texas) you can often see the rain shafts at lower altitudes, too.

Just remember that you also need to plan far ahead and stay abreast of the situation. If you're IFR and approaching your destination, ATC may not be able to let you stay high enough.

The other thing to remember is that (particularly this time of year) the cells can develop and turn ugly fairly quickly - and they can move fast (squall line).

Two quick stories:

1) going out of HEF enroute back to San Antonio, with a stop outside of Nashville. The ATC-assigned routing took me essentially over Elkins, then southwest across WV. I'd been watching some stuff develop on XM weather in the cockpit, and I saw it on the stormscope. Over a 15 minute period, it moved from well-clear of the flight path/isolated cells to what was rapidly becoming a line of storms. It was obvious that EKN would be in a cell by the time I got there 10-15 minutes later. I got a cut to the southwest approved by ATC, along with deviations for the weather. I managed to skirt the edge of a growing cell - in some rain, but outside the core. By the time I was clear, the cell had not only taken in my original flight path, but also the deviated path that I was able to navigate. In fact, it turned into a solid line about 100 miles long.

2) I had filed SAT-RBD (Redbird/Dallas Exec, inside the Dallas Tracon area). I was skirting (40-50 miles) up the leading edge of a pretty solid line of storms that stretched from the west side Fort Worth to Kerrville. FLight plan had me in well before the storms would hit - but it was obvious that they were moving quickly. When Ft. Worth center handed me off to Dallas approach, it still appeared that I could make Redbird pretty easily. Until.... approach called me and said "Dallas area airports are closed due to the storm, state intentions". I was 5 miles from Lancaster, which is the IAF for the RBD ILS-31 approach, and less than 10 miles by air from RBD.

I asked ATC if LNC was still open - they confirmed that it was, gave me an approach clearance, and I did a pretty quick approach into LNC. I was on the ground for about 8 minutes when the storm hit - no chance of getting it in a hangar, but we did get it tied down. I could probably have made RBD, but I was as happy to be on the ground at LNC. I managed to get a car from Enterprise, and drove to my meeting. The folks I met with told me that it was pretty rough in Dallas proper. (Side note, I skirted up the leading edge of that front the next morning, with ground speeds over 200 kts - it's the only time CVG approach let me over the top of the main airport, and let me have a super slam-dunk into Lunken).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top