You made my point; you need some education on the use internet radar images. It’s an excellent tool for strategic planning. But it’s not to be used to deviate around cells unless you want to get yourself in trouble. How can you use an image that could be 10 minutes old to deviate around a cell?
No going back to the topic of this thread. Keep congress away from the cockpit.
I am not talking about looking at a radar image on your computer then deviating blindly around a thunderstorm without using your onboard radar. I am talking about using it as another tool to help you.
Also, you said that "you need some education on the use internet radar images". I guess I agree, although I feel that all airline pilots probably already meet that prerequisite, that would be great to do that training in all airline initial and recurrent classes.
The last 10 years I've spent in an MD80, usually stuck in the low 30s, usually heading across the plains, wishing that I had a better idea of what the "big picture" was.
Position: Applying for my real estate license in Detroit.
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by flycrj200
Sorry, but I do not think you know what you are talking about. You do not use radar from the internet for course deviation. NEXRAD could be up to 10 minutes old. That how some people in general aviation get them self killed.
Well, a lot of guys depend on the FAA to point out weather (and the FAA has 1970s technology). Otherwise known as a "fish finder."
Being ignorant to innovations in the cockpit gets people in general aviation killed also.
If you are in a MD80, those legs are pretty short. You can get the big picture, as you are expected, BEFORE you leave the gate. Check the NEXRAD there.
There are so many reasons which would make a NEXRAD image useless to a pilot. How many times have you heard the FAA tell you "we are depicting modertate to severe weather, 20 miles at your 12'oclock." And we say back, "thanks, but that weather is well below us and not a factor.
@the guys trying to say nexrad on laptops is of help...
Are you some sort of Cessna Jockeys?
You're wayyyyyyy wayyyyyyy wayyyyyyy out of your league here.
- Dated
- Equipment on board
- View out the window
- Way a NEXRAD creates an image when compared to airaft based radar
- Blind Spots
- Inability to focus NEXRAD on the altitudes you want.
Many Many More, you guys sound like a bunch of guys who are going goo goo gaa gaa over the G1000 XM weather display.
If you are in a MD80, those legs are pretty short. You can get the big picture, as you are expected, BEFORE you leave the gate. Check the NEXRAD there.
There are so many reasons which would make a NEXRAD image useless to a pilot. How many times have you heard the FAA tell you "we are depicting modertate to severe weather, 20 miles at your 12'oclock." And we say back, "thanks, but that weather is well below us and not a factor.
Just my two cents.
Although 4 hour legs are "short" they are still long enough for weather to change. If something is good enough to look at before a flight, then why wouldn't it be good enough to look at inflight?
I never advocated blindly following a computer screen, nor did I ever say to use that information to override what you see with your own radar.
Looking at radar, especially when overlayed by a radar summary chart, which updates at least every hour, would be helpful. Latest available information is always better than old stuff.
If you are in a MD80, those legs are pretty short. You can get the big picture, as you are expected, BEFORE you leave the gate. Check the NEXRAD there.
There are so many reasons which would make a NEXRAD image useless to a pilot. How many times have you heard the FAA tell you "we are depicting modertate to severe weather, 20 miles at your 12'oclock." And we say back, "thanks, but that weather is well below us and not a factor.
Just my two cents.
Unless you're an AA pilot. Those guys do plenty of 4-5 hour mid-con legs in the 'Super' 80. And yes, the nexrad in the G1000 is very nice. Does it replace on-board radar? Of course not. Is it nice to have info about what might be behind that hole you're heading for, in mezo-scale or squall-line systems? Absolutely.
Sure we did. In my jet at least, light precip on the radome (like skirting the edge of a system while finding a hole) is enough to attenuate everything behind it. What's wrong with wanting an the bigger-picture view of the system we're facing? Have you ever gone through a decent hole only to find that what's behind it isn't what you were expecting?
I'm relieved they didn't lie and say they were distracted by their enjoyment of a good cup of coffee. Imagine if Congress was overreacting and wanted to ban that! Am I the only one that finds it amusing that laws may be passed to ban something from cockpits that hasn't caused any problems?
On their computers? Yeah, right. . .
__________________
Anybody see where I put the rat poison?
Look all this talk about NEXRAD and stuff is kind of silly.
I'd be up for having another radar picture in the cockpit. But, I agree with everyone else, it's useless in planning deviations and such, and yes, most of the weather will be well below us.
However, the big picture is also important. How about weather at destination, alternates, etc? Before flights (when I have time) I look at the radar maps, check out storms, look at the tops, I look at turbulence charts and pirep charts to figure out what the ride might be like so I can brief the flight attendants. Having access to that kind of stuff could be a good thing.
Having too much information (and some of it useless) is not always a bad thing. I'd rather have more than enough than too little.
Linear Mode
