 Is it
time for a massive overhaul?
This discussion
might raise a few professional eyebrows. But that's the
eye-dea!
It's been a very long time since general aviation pilots have
seen any monumental improvement
in how they view the weather prior to a flight. Ah,
but what about the World Wide Web? Hang on, we'll
get to that in a moment. While avionics and
navigation equipment have improved 10-fold over the last decade or two,
the average private pilot still depends on the same crude
method when obtaining a preflight
weather briefing. At least prior to the early 1990s, a pilot could
still get a personalized weather briefing from a highly skilled
meteorologist at the NWS; that option no longer exists. This
especially hits close to home for aircraft
owners that want to gain the most utility from their aircraft while
minimizing their exposure to adverse weather. We're now
starting the
second decade of the 21st Century and a major overhaul is long overdue.
There's
no doubt that we're still living in the 1970s when it comes to how
thousands of general aviation pilots get their basic weather briefing
every day. Just take a look at all of the official
NWS products; most are rooted in text that still uses cryptic language.
Yes, it's true that the Internet has added an entirely new
dimension although most websites that are used by weather-savvy pilots
are not openly recognized or endorsed by the FAA as an official source
of preflight weather. Despite the smorgasbord of weather
guidance that
is freely available on the Internet right now, too many pilots still
tend to shy away
from the world wide web and gravitate toward a standard
briefing through Lockheed
Martin Flight Services.
However,
when the weather is
even remotely complex or challenging, a standard briefing is woefully
underwhelming
and subtly incomplete. This does not suggest in the
least that the service provided by Lockheed Martin is poor; it's the
product they are required to provide that often doesn't drill down deep
enough to get to the root of the weather analysis and provide the pilot
with the situational awareness that's possible. It's like the
pilot read the book, but didn't quite understand the story.
If it's not broke, don't fix it
There will always be a subset of general aviation
pilots
that believe the current system is just fine and dandy; they receive
acceptable service from Lockheed Martin and typically make very
conservative decisions based on that information. This group
of pilots rarely challenges the weather when they
hear thunderstorms are a remote possibility. They don't
venture into the clouds during the cold season
and don't fly when IFR conditions might be an issue at their
destination requiring an instrument approach. Lastly, they
don't
fly when there's a chance of strong winds that might produce even
moderate turbulence or a challenging landing. Essentially, this group
rarely takes any
additional risks - even though it very well may be safe.
Their
mantra is usually, "It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in
the air
rather than being in the air wishing you were on the ground."
The standard briefing through Lockheed Martin
Flight Services
should be left as a last resort when the pilot has no other way to
identify the location of adverse weather. In today's world there is
something inherently wrong with a briefing that consists of specialist
reading text to a pilot over the phone. For
low-impact weather days this kind of preflight briefing is usually
sufficient
simply because there are no weather issues that might include
additional risk.
Similarly for high-impact weather days, a standard briefing
may also be
sufficient simply because the adverse weather obviously stands out like
a sore thumb forcing the pilot no other choice but to stay on the
ground or delay the flight.
It's that middle-of-the-road weather situation that's the
most difficult
to assess with any consistency.
What about training?
It's obvious that the FAA has yet to update the
standards in how pilots are trained despite all the other detailed
weather guidance
that is freely available. They have only recently improved the Aviation
Weather Services
advisory circular (00-45F) to include
products such as the Current
Icing Product (CIP) and convective outlooks issued by the Storm
Prediction Center (SPC). It is still astonishing how many pilots
are not aware of the Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS).
What's the most frustrating is that the FAA still uses
questions
in their knowledge tests that are based on 1970s-style facsimile charts
that are lacking detail, are difficult to find or are no longer
supplied
by the NWS - especially when there are hundreds of websites that have
been available for over a decade that describe the adverse weather much
better in time and space.
Many general aviation pilots are not
professionally
trained. Sure, they likely employed an FAA-certificated
flight instructor,
but that only prepared them to take the FAA practical exam.
After the
pilot passes the practical test and examiner signs the paperwork, the
pilot isn't required to undergo any additional training unless they are
seeking a new certificate, rating or operating privilege. Of
course, every two years a flight review is required,
but there's no requirement that this include any additional weather
training. Therefore,
instructors (and examiners) do not have to emphasize the use of any
other available weather guidance that will often provide a higher
spatial and temporal resolution.
Despite the fact that weather will affect our
flying activity more than any other physical factor, instructors and
FAA-designated examiners are often reluctant to reach out beyond the
basics identified in the practical test standards (PTS).
Sure, we have to learn to walk before we can run, but very
few instructors teach weather to the depth necessary, primarily because
they really don't understand it themselves. Training
typically ends with vague generalities and enough knowledge to pass the
written and practical exams. Flight instructors rarely
embrace all other weather guidance that is freely available, primarily
because they don't understand the science or are unaware of the
guidance that is available. Most importantly, pilots are not
taught how how to effectively integrate all of this guidance
into context of their routine flight planning.
More capable aircraft demand more
in-depth weather training
While there's a subset of pilots that rarely
venture more
than 100 miles from their home airport, there are plenty of pilots
buying aircraft with the intent of making significant cross country
flights for both business and pleasure. Consequently,
manufacturers are producing aircraft that continue to expand the
pilot's potential flight envelope. For example, aircraft
with turbocharged
or turbo-normalized engines allow a pilot the capability to fly above
most of the adverse weather issues. However, when the pilot
receives their primary training, certainly little or no emphasis is
given to weather concerns in the flight levels.
In the last 10 years, more manufacturers are
offering an aircraft with a certified ice protection system (IPS).
Pilots who purchase these well-equipped aircraft have never
been trained, and thus, have no experience on how to plan a flight
through
known icing conditions. Cirrus is one such manufacturer that
recently added a certified IPS as an option. The Cirrus Pilot
Operating Handbook (POH) requires that the pilot successfully complete
an online training course in the last two years before flight into
known icing conditions is attempted. Unfortunately, the
course
falls short of the training necessary and lacks important details.
Click here to read a
review of the Cirrus Icing Awareness Course.
Taking the pilot to the next level
There's no doubt that tens of thousands of pilots
have already abandoned a formal briefing through Lockheed Martin Flight
Services for an informal briefing using their own personal cadre of
Internet sites. Many of these pilots may still make the phone
call to 1-800-WXBRIEF, but that's largely to record that they've met
their regulatory obligation and to get NOTAMs, not necessarily to gain
insight into the adverse weather they may face. Are they on
the right track or just fooling themselves? Without a weak
understanding of the potpourri of weather products they are using, they
may just be shifting or masking the issue and not solving the inherent
problem. Taking general aviation pilots to the next level
will involve a radical change to the way pilots visualize adverse
weather coupled with a more comprehensive approach on how
pilots are trained.
The first order of business will be to condense
the amount of text the pilot must consume. Weather needs to
be perceived in four dimensions. It's difficult if not
fundamentally impossible for the average (or even above average) pilot
to consume all of this textual guidance, in some cases over the phone,
and consistently assess the impact it may have on their flight.
While some text will always be an integral part of the
available weather guidance, a more robust and diversified way to
visualize the adverse weather in time and space is sorely needed - that
implies a sophisticated graphical
interface.
The good news is that the FAA/NWS has recently
introduced the Graphical AIRMET (G-AIRMET) in an
attempt to identify adverse weather better in time and space than the
traditional AIRMET. This particular product is the first of
several steps initiated by the Aviation Weather Center (AWC) to
generate text as a by-product from a graphic. This will
culminate in the next generation product called the Graphical Forecast
for Aviation (GFA) as mentioned in AIRMETs Get Graphic (November
2008, IFR). The GFA will be
created by the forecaster as a graphic and the associated text will be
automatically generated from the graphic.
The bad news is that changing from a textual to
graphical paradigm requires a shift in the way aviation meteorologists
have worked for decades. That is, instead of looking at weather charts
and preparing the forecasts using a typewriter or computer keyboard,
forecasters will construct graphical forecasts from which a textual
product (if any) is automatically generated.
Even after the GFA becomes operational, there are
still dozens of other products that the FAA needs to stand behind.
Thermodynamic charts called Skew-T log (p) diagrams,
for example, are extremely useful when attempting to understand the
potential adverse weather at a particular location or along a
particular route. While they are used by many glider pilots,
this tool is extremely useful to assess the winds aloft, freezing
level, icing potential, instability, turbulence, ceiling and cloud tops
just to name a few. Model output statistics (MOS) can also be
a great planning tool for pilots as described in the June 2006 issue of The Front.
Lastly, Tomorrow's NEXRAD (July
2006, IFR) discusses one of the newest precipitation forecasts called
simulated reflectivity. This product can give the pilot an
amazing insight into the convective potential when it is coupled with
the official NWS forecasts.
In addition to all of the new products, the FAA
needs to retire a few of their current weather products. They
did finally retire the Transcribed Weather Broadcast (TWEB) for the
continental U.S., but they now need to phase out the FB
Winds (winds and temperatures aloft) product which has been obsolete
for many years. It has no amendment criteria and has an
extremely poor
temporal and spatial resolution as compared to the other forecast data
that is freely available and
updated on an hourly basis. The radar summary chart along with the
stability and moisture charts are also quite outdated and need to be
replaced with the newest products.
The training a pilot receives in aviation weather
is grossly underwhelming. Flying an aircraft requires the
pilot master many disciplines including meteorology. Weather
has always represented the greatest educational challenge for students
and instructors. Many pilots know enough to pass the written
test and understand how to get a standard briefing.
Weather obviously hasn't changed since Wilbur and
Orville first took to the skies. However, how we visualize
the weather has changed significantly in the last couple of decades
given the plethora of Internet websites now available to the average
pilot that were once only available to professional meteorologists.
The FAA is missing out on an opportunity to incorporate many
of the newest products and tools into the required training
curriculum.
Those not convinced just need to look at the
weather-related questions on the FAA knowledge tests. The
knowledge test needs to abandon the 1970s-style charts in favor of the
newest products found on the Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) and
other NWS websites to include the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) and the
Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC). Moreover, the
curriculum and the knowledge tests should be structured to promote
decision making based on the composite analysis of the data in the
context of a proposed flight.
The FAA is the catalyst for all of these changes
and that is part of the problem. For example, the newest
version of the Forecast Icing Product (FIP) has been ready
for nearly a year, but still has not gotten formal approval
for operational status and probably won't until after the current icing
season is over.
The reality is that many pilots are not waiting
for the FAA approval and are using many of these new tools.
The scary part is that they are not receiving any training on
how to use them within their designed limitations. Short of a
degree in meteorology, there are little or no education guidance
available to pilots.
Obviously there's no way to demand that current
pilots become fluent in the newest products overnight.
However, the FAA can mandate a new curriculum for any pilot
that is working on a new certificate or rating. Flight
reviews are another educational opportunity, but it must be mandated
and instructors must be capable of providing this training.
|
The Automated Surface
Observation System (ASOS) component shown to the right measures what
meteorological parameter?