Northrop Grumman, I needed something that would challenge my mind, body, and spirit. There were two options on the table. I had just graduated with my master’s degree and was seriously thinking of taking the next leap of faith and earning a doctorate.

But that was quickly overshadowed by my second option—my childhood dream of learning to fly. And I wasn’t disappointed. It did challenge my mind, body, and spirit every step of the way.

What intrigued me the most about learning to fly was that it required mastering many disciplines. In other words, it’s more than just jumping into an airplane and learning stick-and-rudder skills. You have to become entrenched in subjects such as aerodynamics, radio navigation, geography, radio communications, airspace, map reading, legal, medical, and my favorite discipline, meteorology.

Despite my background as a research meteorologist, my aviation weather background was limited when I was a student pilot. So, I was very excited to discover what more I might learn about weather in addition to all of these other disciplines. If you are a student pilot, here are some tips that will help you achieve a good foundation with respect to weather.

It Isn’t Easy

First and foremost, weather is inherently difficult. It’s likely the most difficult discipline to master because of the uncertainty and complexity it brings to the table. Therefore, strive to understand what basic weather reports and forecasts the FAA effectively requires that you examine before every flight. It certainly doesn’t hide it. It’s a fairly short and succinct list that’s all documented in the new Aviation Weather Handbook (FAA-H-8083-28) and the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). Ultimately, knowing the nuts and bolts of this official weather guidance will help with your knowledge and practical tests and give you a head start once the ink is dry on your private pilot certificate.

Second, as a student pilot, plan to get your weather guidance from a single and reliable source. Try not to bounce around using multiple sites or apps. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of websites and apps that will deliver weather guidance to your fingertips such that you can become overwhelmed with all of the choices, and entropy quickly takes over. Besides, flight instructors love to show off their unique collection of weather apps on their iPhone. Sticking with the official subset of weather guidance will allow you to focus on what matters the most.

• READ MORE: Aviation Weather Center Website Upgrade—the Good, Bad, and Ugly

Once you receive your private certificate, then you can expand the weather guidance you use to include other websites and apps.

The two internet sources that should be at the top of your list include the Aviation Weather Center (aviationweather.gov) and Leidos (1800wxbrief.com). Both of these sites provide the essential weather guidance needed to make a preflight weather decision. Using one or both of these sites will help focus you on the official weather guidance the FAA demands you use.

Categorize Your Data

Third, when you look at the latest weather guidance, take a minute and characterize each product. It should fall into one of three categories: observational data, advisories, or forecasts. Knowing its category will tell you how to properly utilize that guidance. For example, if you come across a visible satellite image, that’s an example of observational data.

Observational data is always valid in the past and typically comes from sensors. What about a ground-based radar mosaic (e.g., NEXRAD)? That’s also an observation. Pilot weather reports (PIREPs) and routine surface observations (METARs) are also considered observational data. While not a pure observation, the latest surface analysis chart that is valid in the recent past will identify the major players driving the current weather systems.

• READ MORE: What Is the Criteria for Issuing a Convective SIGMET?

Observations are like the foundation when building a house. All other weather guidance you use will build on that foundation. A sturdy and well-built foundation is the key to a good preflight weather briefing. You can’t know where the weather is going until you know where it has been. Identifying the latest trends in the weather through the use of these observations is the cornerstone of this foundation. When possible, looping the guidance over time will expose these trends. Is the weather moving or stagnant? Is it strengthening or weakening over time?

Advisories such as the initial graphical AIRMETs (G-AIRMETs) snapshot, SIGMETs, and center weather advisories (CWAs) are the front lines of aviation weather. They are designed to highlight the current location of the truly ugly weather. Advisories build the structure that sits atop of this foundation. Essentially, these advisories summarize the observational data by organizing it into distinct hazards and areas of adverse weather to be avoided.

Forecasts are the springboard for how these observations and advisories will evolve over time. You can think of forecasts as the elements that protect the finished house, such as paint, shingles, and waterproofing. This also includes the alarm and surveillance system to alert you to the possible adverse weather scenarios that may occur during your flight. While forecasts are imperfect, they are still incredibly useful. Forecasts include terminal aerodrome forecasts (TAFs), convective outlooks, prog charts, and the remaining four snapshots for G-AIRMETs.

Dive into the Details…

Fourth, details matter quite a bit. Look at the guidance and identify what stands out. Don’t make a decision too early. Instead, carefully observe and gather facts. Is the precipitation occurring along the route limiting the ceiling and/or visibility? Is the precipitation expected to be showery? This is a clear indication of a convective process in place.

Are the surface observations reporting two or three mid- or low-level cloud layers? Again, this is another indication of a convective environment. This can be especially important to identify, especially when there’s a risk of thunderstorms that have yet to form.

…But Fall Back on the Big Picture

Fifth, get a sense of the big weather picture. This is likely the most difficult aspect of learning how to truly read the weather. Think about the big weather picture as the blueprint for building an entire community. It’s what brings everything together. When I do my own preflight briefings, my decisions are largely driven by what’s happening at that synoptic level.

Lastly, read, read, and read some more. Focus mostly on the weather guidance and less on weather theory. These are the specific weather products mentioned earlier. Weather theory is something you can tackle at a later time. The FAA’s Aviation Weather Handbook is a great start. You can download a PDF document for free from the agency website and add this to your online library. This was issued in 2022 to consolidate the weather information from six FAA advisory circulars (ACs) into one source document. My book, Pilot Weather: From Solo to the Airlines, was published in 2018 and is written for pilots at all experience levels in their journey to learn more about weather.

If you fly enough, you will eventually find yourself in challenging weather. The goal of any preflight weather briefing is to limit your exposure to adverse conditions, and that takes resources and time. Once you’ve mastered the weather guidance, then giving Flight Service a call at 1-800-WXBRIEF will allow you to sound like a true professional.

Yes, I eventually did earn that doctorate, but I am really happy that I took the step over 25 years ago to learn to fly. One guarantee with weather: You can never learn enough. I am still learning today.

This column first appeared in the March 2024/Issue 946 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post How to Wrap Your Head Around Weather appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

When the airplane was, he thought, 500 feet above the ground and three-quarters of the way down the 4,500-foot runway, he returned to his work. A few minutes later, one of the others, who had not watched the takeoff but perhaps heard an impact, alerted him to what turned out to be the wreckage of the Trainer in a farm field not far from the end of the runway.

The instrument-rated commercial pilot, 61, was killed. The National Transportation Safety Board’s report on the accident does not mention whether he had obtained a weather briefing for the flight, which was bound for an airport only 40 nm away. An AIRMET was in effect for occasional moderate turbulence below 12,000 feet, with a potential for low-level wind shear below 2,000 feet over an area that included both the departure and destination airports. But the pilot could have guessed as much while walking out to the airplane.

More cautionary, perhaps, would have been two pilot reports that unfortunately came too late. A pilot who landed at an airport 22 miles south of the accident site reported an indicated airspeed drop of 20 knots, caused by wind shear, 150 feet above the ground. The runway orientation at that airport was almost the same as at the accident site. A little later, a Northwest Airlines DC-9, scheduled to land at an airport 16 miles to the east, turned back because the steady crosswind component of 31 knots exceeded company landing parameters. As if a 31-knot crosswind component were not enough, the tower reported a 42-knot gust while the DC-9 was on approach.

The two-seat Grumman was a bit of a hot rod. Originally equipped with a Lycoming O-235 of 108 hp, it had been re-engined with a 160 hp O-320. The engine power is significant because, although its gross weight was less than 1,600 pounds, the stock Trainer, with a 24-foot wingspan, was never a strong climber, as it could do no better than 600 to 700 fpm at sea level. The more powerful engine adds credibility to the witness report of the airplane being at 500 feet well before the end of the runway.

The airplane, manufactured in 1973, was not equipped with the electronic recording equipment that now allows us to anatomize some accidents with second-by-second precision. We do know, however, the pilot had logged 2,400 hours, but fewer than 22 of them had been in the Grumman, which he had acquired less than a year earlier.

The takeoff roll would have been short—probably under 400 feet—but tricky, with a 20-knot crosswind component pushing the airplane to the left. The pilot would probably have wanted to get the wheels off the ground as early as possible. He was light, so, say he rotated at 60 knots, then turned 15 degrees into the wind to maintain runway heading and accelerated to 75 knots. The airplane could certainly climb at better than 1,000 fpm, which is 17 feet per second, and its ground speed along the runway was about 55 knots, or 92 feet per second. In the 30 seconds needed to gain 500 feet, it would have progressed about 2,800 feet along the runway. Add 400 feet for the takeoff roll and you get 3,200 feet. The witnesses’ report was only a guess, and the small size of the airplane might have made it appear higher up than it was, but there is nothing physically implausible about it being at 500 feet three-quarters down the runway. We know, at the very least, that it was not close to the ground.

The NTSB’s “probable cause” was bizarre: “the pilot’s failure [to] maintain climb and his failure to maintain clearance from the terrain during initial climb after takeoff.” Only a bureaucrat bored to distraction would describe an abrupt fall from 500 feet as a “failure to maintain clearance from terrain.”

The wreckage lay 100 yards west of the runway and 300 yards short of its end. Whatever happened must have happened mere seconds after the witness who watched the takeoff turned away. It can’t have taken long. The airplane’s path must have been more vertical than horizontal, since the wreckage rested not far from where the airplane was last seen. The orientation of the 150-foot-long ground scar leading from the point of initial impact to the main wreckage was 10 degrees. The reversal of direction would be consistent with a stall and incipient spin. It may also be significant that the destination airport was to the north-northwest. The Grumman could have been beginning a right turn to on course. Banking steeply would raise the indicated airspeed at which a stall could occur.

Strong, gusty winds produce constantly fluctuating airspeed and vertical speed. The pilot who reported an airspeed loss of 20 knots at 150 feet was descending from a zone in which he had a headwind of a certain velocity into one where it was suddenly 20 knots slower. Assuming that a comparable shear might have existed at the accident site, it would have manifested itself as a similar airspeed loss to an airplane climbing on a downwind heading.

• READ MORE: The Down-Low on Wind Shear

An airplane does not instantly recover airspeed lost in a wind shear. That takes time, and it takes a particularly long time when all excess power is being used for climbing. Assuming that in a 30-degree bank the Trainer’s stalling speed was 60 knots, the difference between that and the best rate of climb speed was around 20 knots. The airplane would not stall instantly if those knots suddenly disappeared because its angle of attack would not instantly change. But its nose would drop, and a pilot trying to maintain a constant pitch attitude in turbulence might react to that by instinctively pulling back on the yoke.

It’s common practice in gusty conditions to add some knots to your normal approach or climbing speed. Those knots are often said to be “for grandma”—probably because she was always urging us to be careful—and they seem to come in multiples of five. To be logical about it, we should add airspeed in proportion to the reported gust or wind shear fluctuations. When those numbers are of the same magnitude as the difference between the airplane’s climbing speed and its stalling speed, grandma would become justifiably nervous, and it might be best to honor her by remaining on the ground. If that isn’t possible, favor airspeed over climb rate and, if the nose and airspeed drop at once, push, don’t pull.

Editor’s note: This article is based on the National Transportation Safety Board’s report of the accident and is intended to bring the issues raised to our readers’ attention. It is not intended to judge or reach any definitive conclusions about the ability or capacity of any person, living or dead, or any aircraft or accessory.

This column first appeared in the October 2023/Issue 942 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Something Happened: Wind Shear Takes Down a Grumman Trainer appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

But first, let’s take a step back in time. On November 28, 2006, the National Weather Service (NWS) began the process of moving away from a text-based system by standardizing the text that was used in the legacy AIRMETs. This standardization step was necessary to pave the way for the AIRMET to be automatically generated from the operational G-AIRMETs that were being proposed at that time. This was also wrapped up in the plan to retire the aviation area forecast (FA) and officially replace it with the graphical forecasts for aviation (GFA). The retirement of the FA occurred on October 10, 2017. During this standardization stepping stone, the NWS removed specific things from the legacy AIRMET that included, in part:

1. The frequency of the hazard occurrence such as /OCNL/ AND /FRQ/

2. Trend remarks

3. The reason for amending, correcting or canceling an AIRMET

4. SIGMET reference statements such as /FOR AREAS OF POSS SEV TURB/ and /FOR AREAS OF POSS SEV ICE

5. The cause of the turbulence, low-level wind shear, and strong surface winds

6. The icing types such as /RIME/, /MXD/, and /CLR

7. The location of icing with respect to clouds and precipitation such as /ICGICIP, /ICGIC/, and /ICGIP

Although some pilots actually noticed the difference after the standardization occurred and were disappointed that the extra details were removed, most did not. In fact, it’s more likely than not that a majority of pilots still don’t know they are looking at a G-AIRMET versus the legacy AIRMET when the AIRMET is depicted graphically. In fact, this is likely one of the reasons it’s taken this long to retire the legacy AIRMET. It’s still used by many of the various aviation applications, including many of the heavyweight apps. However, the folks at Flight Service (Leidos) have been using G-AIRMETs for quite a while, but still allow a pilot to choose between the G-AIRMET and legacy AIRMET on their website, namely, 1800wxbrief.com.  

• READ MORE: Ask FLYING: What is a G-AIRMET?

Before the plug could be officially pulled, the FAA convened a Safety Risk Management Panel (SRMP) this year to evaluate any pitfalls associated with the retirement of the legacy AIRMET. Based on the working group’s recommendation and the SRMP results, the FAA has requested the NWS retire the legacy AIRMET and transition to only the G-AIRMET for the conterminous U.S. The legacy AIRMETs for Alaska and Hawaii will not be affected at this time and this change will not affect significant meteorological information (SIGMET) advisories in any way. 

The NWS recently released a Public Notification Statement (PNS) that is asking for public comments before it officially retires this product in February. Based on the comments received, the FAA/NWS could push the AIRMET retirement to later in the year. However, the wheels are in motion to stop automatically producing the legacy AIRMET over the six forecast regions of the conterminous U.S. When the legacy AIRMET is officially retired, only G-AIRMETs will remain. Keep in mind that G-AIRMETs are completely graphical and have no textual component, only metadata.   

The post Say Goodbye to the Traditional AIRMET appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A. It has been more than a decade since the Graphical AIRMET [AIRman’s METeorological Information] or G-AIRMET replaced the legacy AIRMET. However, it seems that on various podcasts, webinars, and social media platforms, pilots are still clinging to the term “AIRMET.” Perhaps it’s because they were never told that on March 16, 2010, the G-AIRMET became the operational product for pilots and replaced the existing textual AIRMET. After standardizing the language for the AIRMET text in 2006, the legacy AIRMET is now a byproduct of the G-AIRMET, and unfortunately, has stuck around for more than a decade for a variety of reasons. Moreover, many of the heavyweight EFBs continue to cling to the legacy AIRMETs in their app.  

At this point in time, all pilots should have moved away from the legacy AIRMET in favor of using the G-AIRMET. In fact, if you search on the Aviation Weather Center (AWC) website (https://aviationweather.gov), you will not find a graphical depiction of the legacy AIRMET. Yes, the AWC does provide access to the text associated with the latest AIRMETs, but does not depict them graphically. Well, that’s not entirely true. It’s there if you know the “secret” URL, but it’s not part of the site menu structure. That was done on purpose to force pilots to use the new product.

To answer the reader’s question, we need to do a quick history lesson. The legacy AIRMET has always been a textual product. That is, before sophisticated computer systems were in place, an aviation meteorologist issued an AIRMET solely using a keyboard to type in the forecast one character at a time. And, during those days when a pilot received a route briefing from Flight Service, the pilot pulled out a blank advisory plotting map to draw the various AIRMETs as polygons that the briefer provided. Those days of drawing polygons by hand are long gone. When the internet became alive with aviation weather guidance, websites began plotting these polygons for pilots based on the VOR line referenced in the header of the textual AIRMET.  

• READ MORE: Ask FLYING: What Kind of Precip Will Fall First?

The main issue with the legacy AIRMET is that it’s a time-smeared forecast valid over six hours. Its temporal resolution long became a running joke for many pilots who said that most AIRMETs were useless. That’s an understandable reaction since the AIRMET had to cover a period lasting six hours—what if an area of weather was moving quickly through the Midwest? Well, it had to account for that movement within the valid period and the AIRMET ended up covering a lot more real estate because of the time-smear nature of the product. Consequently, at any point in time, some parts of the AIRMET region did not contain the adverse weather identified in the AIRMET. This is why now, in the digital age, we’ve moved away from the AIRMET and today use G-AIRMETs. 

Even though the legacy AIRMET still gets issued four times a day, the primary difference is that a G-AIRMET is a “snapshot” of a particular hazard valid at a specific time (e.g., 0300Z), whereas the legacy AIRMET is valid over six hours. The difference is that the G-AIRMET depicts the expected coverage of adverse weather valid at a particular time within an area defined by a forecaster-generated polygon. Typically, this region is much smaller, and therefore, more useful to the pilot. In the end, the G-AIRMET provides a much better spatiotemporal resolution of the weather hazards than the legacy AIRMET.

In the case of G-AIRMETs, you will notice there’s no textual component like the legacy AIRMET. Instead, G-AIRMETs are created by aviation meteorologists by a simple point and click on a screen. Therefore, it is strictly graphical, although it does include some metadata. For G-AIRMETs depicting widespread moderate ice, for example, the metadata simply consists of upper and lower altitude limits of the airframe icing threat. A G-AIRMET for IFR conditions will include metadata for the specific cause of those IFR conditions such as PCPN (precipitation), BR (mist), or FG (fog). 

• READ MORE: How Should I Use the Location of Troughs Information in Flight Planning?

To cover the same 12-hour period as the legacy AIRMET, each forecast cycle for G-AIRMETs consists of five snapshots. This includes an initial snapshot and snapshots with a lead time of 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours. Then, once the forecaster has defined the snapshots, the software automatically generates the legacy AIRMET text by taking the union of the first three snapshots (initial, 3-hour, and 6-hour). Then the AIRMET outlook is a union of the last three snapshots (6-hour, 9-hour, and 12-hour). What you end up with is guidance with better spatiotemporal resolution.

For example, above are two legacy AIRMETs for airframe icing valid from 15Z to 21Z with the text for each one shown below. This consists of a tiny AIRMET in eastern Montana and a larger one to the east in North Dakota and Minnesota. Why not just combine the two? Given that the legacy AIRMETs must be issued based on the aviation area forecast (FA) boundaries (remember those?), the AIRMET must be split into two parts, namely, for the Chicago and Salt Lake City FA areas.   

On the other hand, G-AIRMETs are essentially seamless and don’t need to obey the FA boundaries. Shown below are the three G-AIRMET snapshots that define the initial (15Z), 3-hour (18Z), and 6-hour (21Z) forecasts. For the most part, the union of these three snapshots should approximate the legacy AIRMET area.   

If you were departing out of the Dickinson/Theodore Roosevelt Regional Airport (KDIK) in southwestern North Dakota around 21Z, it would appear from the legacy AIRMET that moderate airframe icing might be an issue. However, at 21Z, the only region of moderate airframe ice forecast using the G-AIRMET snapshot valid at 21Z is located at the northern border between North Dakota and Minnesota.  

But there’s another advantage of the G-AIRMET. The legacy AIRMET was split into three groups, namely, Sierra, Tango, and Zulu for mountain obscuration and IFR conditions, turbulence, and icing, respectively. The problem is that each one of these had embedded subcategories. That is, AIRMET Tango was issued for moderate nonconvective turbulence, nonconvective low-level wind shear (LLWS), and strong surface winds. Now, those three are split out into their own G-AIRMET making it easier to recognize.

The post Ask FLYING: What is a G-AIRMET? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.