severe turb and extreme precip return flight from OSH

C

coma24

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
920
Location
Pompton Plains, NJ
Display Name
Display name:
coma24
2012 OSH-N07 (Oshkosh to Lincoln Park, NJ, non-stop, Lancair 360)

This is timelapse (unforunately) video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upXnCTiK4io (full screen high def is nice). Incident occurs at the 26sec mark. You can double click the pause button to move it frame by frame, more or less and see what transpires.

Here's the PIREP from the extreme precip and severe turbulence encounter:
MBS UUA /OV MBS360005/TM 1939/FL110/TP LNC2/TB SEV/RM LOST 1000FT ONE PERSON INJURED NO A/C DAMAGE

The precip was so heavy, I could no longer see the cowl, immediately in front of the canopy.

Pax opened up his lip when his head hit the roof. I later found a few cuts on my scalp when my head hit the metal track for the sun shade. It was two violent down drafts a couple of seconds apart. The first 400ft were lost before I could perceive what had happened, the next 600ft were a relatively slow recovery after immediately pulling power to idle, and slowly pulling out of the descent. We hadn't received any traffic alerts for aircraft passing with minimum separation (1000ft), so I was aware that we had time for the recovery.

Later on, we encountered a situation that had the potential to yield similar results and as the turbulence started picking up, we initiated an emergency descent. The controller issued a freq change (to talk to the underlying controller, presumably), but I was unable as I was flying with one hand and planting myself in the seat with the other. He allowed us to remain on freq.

It's one of the only times I've ever wished I had on-board weather, although I've found myself much more paranoid about it ever since. ATC has traditionally done a great job of calling areas of heavy precip for me to avoid in the past (and ever since), this was the only time I hit something they didn't call well in advance.

Now that I think about it, ATC DID call that there was areas of extreme precip ahead about 20 secs before we hit it. I was discussing the option of turning around, deviating, or getting lower (we knew where the bases were) with my pax (also a pilot). We had settled on turning around just before it hit (I know that sounds very convenient, but that is actually what happened).

It's about the only time I've ever really been fearful in the airplane. The two downdrafts were so violent and sudden, it made me worry what might happen next, and if it would quite literally break up the airplane (we were way above a). I don't think I've ever felt so powerless while sitting in the airplane.

Interestingly, we got a thorough briefing for this flight by walking in to the FSS at OSH. It's a weird experience talking to the briefer face to face. There was very little activity over Saginaw (which is where this happened) at the time but that clearly changed once we were enroute.

Having enroute weather would've shown us the big picture of what was brewing, and we may have diverted around the whole system a lot sooner as a result. I plan on buying the ADS-B receiver for the IPad as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
I have the stratus for foreflight.

It works. But if there are storms in the neighborhood I stay out of IMC. What were the bases there?
 
I have both XM and a WX-900 stormscope and I have to say, I don't think I'd want to go IMC without both kinds of onboard weather whenever convective stuff is brewing. This past Saturday I flew from my home base at KVLL down to KBMI for a PoA meetup and had some tense moments when things got bumpy in some building CU on the way down, even though there was no precip on the screen and no strikes showing nearby on the scope. I'd also requested weather avoidance from ATC as I'm well aware that XM radar info can be 20 minutes old before I see it. Even so, a cell can have nasty turbulence even before it starts generating precip or lightning so there is some risk at any time. All to say that, I never want to go through what you did and I'll use all the tools I can afford to keep me out of that kind of weather. Thanks for sharing your experience.
 
dell30rb said:
I have the stratus for foreflight.

It works. But if there are storms in the neighborhood I stay out of IMC. What were the bases there?
Click to expand...

The bases were around 5'ish. We made the turnaround decision, though, because the picture had clearly changed and we wanted to get an update on what had popped up. It was too late, though.
 
I had a flight similar to this over the Colorado Rockies about 6 years ago. In addition to all the convection, precip, icing and turbulence, we had the added thrill of knowing there was high, rugged terrain 5,000' below us that we couldn't see but we knew was stirring things up even more. My pax and I also gained some headset creases in our noggins that day.

Moderate to severe turbulence is really the only thing that bothers me. I'll fly IMC all day through precip and all the ice the TKS can handle if it's smooth or light chop. But enduring +/- 1 to 3 G bumps for hours on end, especially in a stiff, single-spar bird like the Mooney, is just no fun at all. Since big turbulence is common in IMC over the Rockies, I just don't do it any more.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the other posters here. Sometimes Nexrad is not going to show the whole picture. I've punched through a few towering cumulus columns that in hindsight were really bad ideas. Sometimes if you can't fly high enough to get above, you're just going to have to settle for a bouncy ride underneath.

If you do find your self beyond the point of no return, tighten up the belt, slow the plane down, and control for attitude and airspeed, rather than altitude...oh, and relax, your plan can handle a lot.
 
Another option for WX is your smart phone. I can get the NOAA WX data on my Samsung S3 consistenly below 5,000 feet and occasionaly above that. Unlike ADS-B WX my Samsung WX works everywhere all the way to the hotel room. I found the NOAA satellite infrared image very useful to assess cloud cover and turbulence areas where the radar will not show. Unfortunately ADS-B WX does not show satellite images. Beware that to get ADS-B WX in some areas you need to be above 2000ft. This is where your smart phone becomes handy.

José
 
Last edited:
Brad Z said:
I agree with the other posters here. Sometimes Nexrad is not going to show the whole picture. I've punched through a few towering cumulus columns that in hindsight were really bad ideas. Sometimes if you can't fly high enough to get above, you're just going to have to settle for a bouncy ride underneath.

If you do find your self beyond the point of no return, tighten up the belt, slow the plane down, and control for attitude and airspeed, rather than altitude...oh, and relax, your plan can handle a lot.
Click to expand...

Very good advice, right on. If you have Stormscope onboard stay away from those cells that show dots on the Stormscope. I found minimum turbulence or gusting flying underneath the red cells that have no lightning activity.

José
 
The thing about the stormscope is that it can show precip before it shows on ADSB/Nexrad, cause the rubbing of the air inside the the cloud shows up as electrical activity - then you have the water falling out of the cloud next. . .

Having ADSB and a stormscope and know how to use them together with the mark 1 eyeball . . . .I would have asked for 12 on that flight and stayed above the clouds if I could have - ask for 12000 for cloud avoidance - you'll get it or a while and use that time to find a path out, around or down. Even a quick look a SkewT west of PA-SC line would have told everything you needed to know about flying in the afternoon.
 
was that yesterday, when a squall line moved across the country from oklahoma to wisconsin?
 
coma24 said:
The bases were around 5'ish. We made the turnaround decision, though, because the picture had clearly changed and we wanted to get an update on what had popped up. It was too late, though.
Click to expand...

Hm i thought I replied to this earlier.

Judging from your video I would have gone below the bases VFR. Visually see and avoid the heavy rain shafts

You might consider a used storm scope. They are relatively simple to install and you have an experimental. Do a lot o test flying VFR and learn to use it well plus verifying operation before trusting it in IMC
 
Just so you guys know, this story is from him flying back from OSH 10 months ago
 
Been there, done that. On-board weather isn't a no-go item, but it is a really nice to have. We have a KWX56 radar and WX-500 stormscope in the 310.
 
Ren, I agree completely, under would've been better. I was relying too heavily on a) the previous forecast, b) an assumption that ATC would tell us about the precip well in advance (as they have on every other flight before and since).

I also should've used my standard tools for briefing the flight, which would've likely pointed to indications of potential convective activity and would've steered me towards forgoing the tailwinds at 11k and instead stay below the bases.
 
coma24 said:
Ren, I agree completely, under would've been better. I was relying too heavily on a) the previous forecast, b) an assumption that ATC would tell us about the precip well in advance (as they have on every other flight before and since).

I also should've used my standard tools for briefing the flight, which would've likely pointed to indications of potential convective activity and would've steered me towards forgoing the tailwinds at 11k and instead stay below the bases.
Click to expand...

Never assume ATC will tell you anything about precip. I get block altitude, or request a descent. You stayed up there, for a measly tailwind?
 
The plane is happiest is 8-10k (high TAS for lowest fuel burn), so that's where I routinely cruise. That, and there was a nice tailwind up there that day, yes.

I request block altitudes with some frequency but that wouldn't have helped here. 4k would've been nice, 3k is probably what we would've gotten for direction of flight.
 
coma24 said:
The plane is happiest is 8-10k (high TAS for lowest fuel burn), so that's where I routinely cruise. That, and there was a nice tailwind up there that day, yes.

I request block altitudes with some frequency but that wouldn't have helped here. 4k would've been nice, 3k is probably what we would've gotten for direction of flight.
Click to expand...

Well, if you like cut lips and busted heads....;)
 
yeah yeah yeah, thx Ed :)

I've had many, many flights where I was fat, dumb and happy at 11k where I would've been fat, slightly smarter (more O2!) and miserable at 4k, or in IMC for that matter.
 
coma24 said:
The plane is happiest is 8-10k (high TAS for lowest fuel burn), so that's where I routinely cruise. That, and there was a nice tailwind up there that day, yes.

I request block altitudes with some frequency but that wouldn't have helped here. 4k would've been nice, 3k is probably what we would've gotten for direction of flight.
Click to expand...

Just an opinion, but blundering along IMC into convective activity that severe is not the best plan. As others have mentioned, ducking under to watch for rain columns is a tried and true survival technique. The are many examples of small GA planes coming out of convective activity in small bits.
 
Yes, it was never the plan to blunder into convective activity. The briefing didn't indicate that there was much chance of convective activity. Once we realized there was a good chance of it, we made the call to turn around and land to get a better picture of the updated situation, but it was too late and we hit it.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Just an opinion, but blundering along IMC into convective activity that severe is not the best plan. As others have mentioned, ducking under to watch for rain columns is a tried and true survival technique. The are many examples of small GA planes coming out of convective activity in small bits.
Click to expand...

Can you explain more about this?
 
Sure, but I have very little practical weather experience. For me it's all just words on the page right now.
 
Cumulus stage: Mostly, if not all updrafts, light chop to light/moderate turbulence. Great lift though.

Mature stage: Updrafts + downdrafts = moderate to heavy to z0mg!!! turbulence + plus heavy rain + hail possible.

Dissipating: Mostly to all down drafts and light rain.

If there's rain it's (at least) mature and that's the worst place to be. So if you see where it's raining, you avoid it and avoid the turbulence and downdrafts.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Thanks for the literary picture.
Click to expand...

rain-over-queens.jpg
 
I remember you and Mike talking about that filight Keith. I think Mike posted a photo of his lip somewhere.
 
That video was neat, I can't wait to get IFR rated and play in the clouds.
 
AdamZ said:
I remember you and Mike talking about that filight Keith. I think Mike posted a photo of his lip somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yep, looked like this...doesn't look so bad with the blood cleaned up. A memorable flight indeed. Have a seat open this year again by chance? :D
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    749.2 KB · Views: 14
Nexrad imagery in the cockpit is the best tool and the sole tool that light plane aviators need for avoiding turbulence and heavy precip from TSRAs.

A provocative statement purposely made. When I read reactions and advice concerning TSRA avoidance, I'm somewhat confused by the insistence that Stormscopes and/or onboard radar are required. Here's my view.

We all like what we have and what we do whether it's twins versus singles or certified versus experimental. For those that have plumbed the depths of convective weather with onboard radar, nothing less will do. For those that have plumbed the depths with Stormscope technology, it remains a must have. Having both is even better and perhaps all that one would ever need.

I have flown with neither. My TSRA flying experience is limited to use of Nexrad imagery. I'm convinced it's all I need and all I will ever use. Of course it's all I've ever had so the previous paragraph applies in spades.

All three technologies have their limitations and blind spots. Understanding them and respecting them is a key to success. It certainly applies to using Nexrad.

My Nexrad use started with Cheap Bastard software (it should be in some kind of software/hacking hall of fame). It was free software that ran on an RF Palm Pilot that gave one well aged Nexrad imagery based on any VOR identifier in black and white. It sucked but was a total game changer for this southeastern flier. I could now validate what I saw outside the window. I could peer around the corners that JAX controllers were sending me. I could fly above cloud base on typical SE US summer days.

Then it was XM on the G396 and I had a real tool to work with. Later it was XM on an experimental EFIS. Limited by the capabilities of my fragile plane and soft skull, it was all I'd ever need.

Now it's ADSB weather on an experimental EFIS. It's a step backwards but it does the job. However XM is better and worth the $$$. This old cheap bastard is sticking with ADSB and simply accepting additional limitations compared to XM. But if you're serious, don't add a Stormscope or dream of onboard radar, just pay for XM.

Here's how I use it in a nutshell...

Stay visual as much as possible and avoid flying into convective buildups. It's always necessary to see with your eyes and validate the view with Nexrad. Or it's see with Nexrad and validate with your eyes. In any case, don't let ATC steer you into stuff you shouldn't go into. Going thru the occasional convective buildups is limited to being able to seeing the other side clearly. Going into 100% IMC with embedded convective lumps is a no-no unless the forecast, Nexrad, ceilings and tops all agree that the lumps are limited in size and height and potential impact, then it's still a bad idea.

One of it's limitations is that it is not real time and sometimes the information is badly aged. You have to respect that but it can also be an advantage. If Nexrad shows you what has been over the past 30-60 mins and you can see what it is now outside the windscreen, then you can know more than a real time radar image is telling you (but remember, I have no experience with radar). In any case, it is useful information. It's just not a real time view of what is happening in the moment. You can't be dependent on Nexrad alone for that.

We all best know what we've done and what we have. Understand my experience in that context. The times I've experienced convective activity while IMC before Nexrad terrified me. No harm, no fouls but the limitations quickly became obvious. OTOH, TSRAs are just out of control thermals. Just like having a mission with an airplane will force you to deal with weather issues you otherwise wouldn't, racing sailplanes forces you to deal with TSRAs on days you otherwise wouldn't go soaring. Over time, I got pretty comfortable with flying around, under and right up against TSRAs. Always remaining visual, not always dry or without bone jarring turbulence, hail and lightning. The idea that I can't outrun a convective buildup when I can actually see it with the Mark 1 eyeballs just doesn't compute yet, even in a powerless sailplane. The only times I've been swept up by something that was stronger or nastier than I could imagine was when I flew into it purposely.

Anyway, light SEL airplanes have no business flying blindly in convective stuff. But you can fly safely, and usually comfortably, underneath, around and among the buildups. You can even work squall lines if they have visual breaks. You may not be able to fly over it all but if you can get high enough you can usually fly around even the biggest stuff.

And sometimes you just can't. But Nexrad in the cockpit is all you need to get a lot more utility out of your light SEL airplane.

PS, if you plan to rely solely on ATC advice for avoiding TSRAs, you are being a fool. It can work really well until the moment it doesn't. They can drop weather avoidance advice at the drop of a hat, and they will do it the moment it jeopardizes their ability to separate traffic. Notwithstanding, bless all JAX controllers and their management, amen.
 
Bill Watson said:
Nexrad imagery in the cockpit is the best tool and the sole tool that light plane aviators need for avoiding turbulence and heavy precip from TSRAs.
Click to expand...

From personal experience I can tell you this is categorically not true.

Don't get me wrong - Nexrad is an important tool, but it is insufficient in areas of building or rapidly moving cells. At 150 knots, one will cover a lot of ground in the 7-8 minutes it takes for Nexrad to update. And that is more than sufficient for a cell to mature and/or be in a different place than indicated. As recently as last summer I found myself picking through a line over WV where the Nexrad was enough out-of-date that reliance alone would have been trouble. Stormscope and Mark-I eyeballs together with Nexrad kept me out of the worst of it.

If you rely on Nexrad, you really need to observe the trends. It's not perfect, but far better than a Nexrad snapshot.

Nexrad=important tool, but not sufficient by itself
Stormscope=important tool, but not sufficient by itself

IMHO
 
Bill Watson said:
Now it's ADSB weather on an experimental EFIS. It's a step backwards but it does the job. However XM is better and worth the $$$. This old cheap bastard is sticking with ADSB and simply accepting additional limitations compared to XM. But if you're serious, don't add a Stormscope or dream of onboard radar, just pay for XM.
Click to expand...
Please explain.
 
I've seen nexrad go from clear in an area to showing a severe Tstorm with dime size hail in 6-7 minutes.

You would have seen that storm building with a stormscope or on-board radar.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...

I've used both. The XM weather has a noticeably higher resolution but its not going to affect how you use the radar picture for flying. The picture just looks better and cleaner. XM also displays lightning but its more of a cool feature to have than something you will use.

As far as the other stuff. I think ADSB has all of the other goodies I like that XM has - METARS and TAF's are displayed with ADSB.

I would say XM is better but I would not say its worth the money. I bought the sporty's ADSB receiver and am satisfied with it.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...

IMO, and only my opinion, XM offers full coverage of the continental US all the way to the ground. ADSB doesn't.

There are a few additional pieces of data that XM sends (depending on what you pay for) - the question is whether your display software will show them. IIRC, Foreflight doesn't show everything that XM can send.
 
wsuffa said:
IMO, and only my opinion, XM offers full coverage of the continental US all the way to the ground. ADSB doesn't.

There are a few additional pieces of data that XM sends (depending on what you pay for) - the question is whether your display software will show them. IIRC, Foreflight doesn't show everything that XM can send.
Click to expand...

Very true but below 1000AGL I can get all the weather info I need on my iPhone. Above that ADSB has been 100% coverage for me in the southeast.

Also nice that my home drome has ADS-B on the field. Many of the larger GA fields are getting this capability
 
Jaybird180 said:
Please explain.
Click to expand...
I agree with the previous responses.

I would add that XM on the G396 was better than what I was supported on my experimental EFIS. Frontal lines, tops speeds, lightening, winds aloft, and resolution. I suspect from what I've read that he latest Gxxx portable implementations are still better than the iPad implementations. But there's a lot to be said for having all the weather (and traffic) integrated with your primary EFIS display.

I've had solid ADSB Nexrad coverage throughout the SE with the exception of a flight coming over Asheville. Fortunately I could see and stay visual with the mess. ADSB nexrad was just X'd out where the action was happening. Coverage also gots spotty in parts of Alabama, Mississippi and Lousiana, right where I really need it.

So, I'm going with ADSB as a cost conscious compromise. All these decisions are probably cost conscious compromises.
 
wsuffa said:
From personal experience I can tell you this is categorically not true.

Don't get me wrong - Nexrad is an important tool, but it is insufficient in areas of building or rapidly moving cells. At 150 knots, one will cover a lot of ground in the 7-8 minutes it takes for Nexrad to update. And that is more than sufficient for a cell to mature and/or be in a different place than indicated. As recently as last summer I found myself picking through a line over WV where the Nexrad was enough out-of-date that reliance alone would have been trouble. Stormscope and Mark-I eyeballs together with Nexrad kept me out of the worst of it.

If you rely on Nexrad, you really need to observe the trends. It's not perfect, but far better than a Nexrad snapshot.

Nexrad=important tool, but not sufficient by itself
Stormscope=important tool, but not sufficient by itself
IMHO
Click to expand...
Well by that formulation, are you saying that both together are sufficient? I'm thinking that the implication is:
Nexrad + Stormscope = important tools but not sufficient by themselves
Because who ever has enough tools?

What I'm trying to say is that Nexrad is the single best tool for light plane fliers looking to avoid TRSAs.

The thing about a cell building within the Nexrad delay time is true. But my take on such situations is that you must have enough visual contact to spot such a development. And the thought that, "If you rely on Nexrad, you really need to observe the trends. It's not perfect, but far better than a Nexrad snapshot." is absolutely true.

Coming out of Oshkosh a couple of years ago, controllers warned me of a fast developing cell directly on my path. I was visual, I could see two towering Cus to my left and right. Nexrad agreed with what I was seeing. The gap was big enough to get through by my estimation, but ATC continued to express concern. Never did quite figure out what they were seeing. Maybe they were looking at a new cell developing below me but on my path. I could see that was a possibility but it was clear I would be gone before I would be caught from below. I appreciated their support buy motored on without deviation.

In my flying, I have to see the convective activity, at least some parts of it at least some of the time. I consider flying 100% IMC in embedded TRSA situations a crap shoot. If you would say that a Stormscope with Nexrad is sufficient for embedded TRSA avoidance, maybe that's right. I'm sure it's better. But again I have zero experience.

So, what's the most important single addition to the typical light plane for TRSA flying? I'd say Nexrad and I'd say that Nexrad alone is sufficient to greatly expand the range of conditions that can be comfortably flown. At the same time I'm challenging the idea that Stormscope alone is as capable or that adding Stormscope to Nexrad significantly expands one's capability. If I had it, I'd use it, especially if I had some experience with it. But I wouldn't add it as a cost effective capability expander.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top