Ok, I am sorry but I can't take this any more. Why is it that every time I call in for a weather briefing, the sky is falling? I feel like for whatever reason the briefers always say "ya, this isn't looking like its going to be a pleasant flight" or whatever comment they have. My last three flights (and probably about half my total flights) the briefing is something to that extent. I understand liability. I understand erring on the side of caution. But the last flight where it happened, I drove 80 miles to check it out myself and got stuck in road construction. After watching planes fly through (it was at sheep mountain back in August), I turned around and got my plane. The flight was delightful. It seems like the exact opposite problem would start to arise, where a guy like me sees this and decides to stop listening to briefers?

Am I crazy here?

And on that note, can one of you pro guys that knows a lot more about weather that I do tell me what is going to be happening in Seward between tomorrow and Friday? It looks to me like the area has a low pressure system to the east and one to the west that is going to be coming through in the next few days. If I understand correctly, I can probably expect a little bit of wind, and a little bit of rain during that time. Am I reading that right? I do see the marine weather calls for 13 foot seas tomorrow afternoon during the time that winds will be 25kt.

I am not big on risk taking, but there have been a few times where my experienced friends have said "c'mon, lets check it out ourselves" and they have been some of the nicest, most uneventful flights I have had yet.

Matt

Oh ya, and anyone going to be in the Seward/Montague area tomorrow?

Interesting cause my dealings wiht our folks in Canada has been quite good over the past 12 yrs... they often tell me "looks good everywhere"... Maybe you just get the same grumpy guy at ANC everytime

Well, they are nice enough guys but it's like it's never nice enough to fly if you listen to them. It's very frustrating. I just want an accurate depiction of the weather. I guess maybe I'm asking too much.

Matt

Matt,

ALL that AFSS briefers are permitted to do is READ the weather products to you. They are NOT permitted to "interpret" the weather for you.

So, YOUR task is to try to determine what it all means, and what is government boilerplate and what is actual weather information.

You do know that you can look at the Alaska Aviation Weather Unit's web site and get pretty much all the same information, right? Not to say you shouldn't then call AFSS, and get an "official" briefing on file, however.

I always self brief, then call a briefer to get something on record, and occasionally, I'll hear something from the briefer that I missed, so it's not necessarily redundant. Also, if a briefer is putting out cautions that I think are BS, I can simply ignore them.

Beware advice from the lower 48, because remember, YOUR briefers still work for the FAA, and I assume you're talkiing to Kenai AFSS. I never had much luck with Kenai for some reason. Fairbanks AFSS was always pretty good in my opinion. Down here, we use Lockheed Martin contractors, and ALL they do is what's required: IE, they READ the weather products put out by the NWS.

Again, that's what AFSS is supposed to do...read the weather products for your proposed route that are provided to them by NWS. They are NOT forecasters, so take anything they say that smells of forecast with a grain of salt.

Now, that said, I've known a lot of AFSS types who were pretty darn sharp at figuring out what would work and what would be ugly. But that happens less and less these days.

Answer is learn as much about weather as you can yourself, self brief, and get a briefing on tape to cover your ass.,

MTV

I hear "VFR flight not recommended " a lot. Sometimes they're right. If you get a pilot on the phone, you usually get good info. I wonder what the percentage is of briefers that are pilots?

Its because you are in Alaska,,,,,and the sky usually IS falling

Nosedragger wrote:I hear "VFR flight not recommended " a lot. Sometimes they're right. If you get a pilot on the phone, you usually get good info. I wonder what the percentage is of briefers that are pilots?

The admonition "VFR flight not recommended" is based on a FORECAST for conditions defined as "marginal VFR". That means:
3. MVFR (Marginal VFR). Ceiling 1,000 to
3,000 feet and/or visibility 3 to 5 miles inclusive.

Here is the excerpt from the AIM describing the briefer's responsibility and the pilot's:

2. VFR Flight Not Recommended. When
VFR flight is proposed and sky conditions or
visibilities are present or forecast, surface or aloft,
that, in the briefer’s judgment, would make flight
under VFR doubtful, the briefer will describe the
conditions, describe the affected locations, and use
the phrase “VFR flight not recommended.” This
recommendation is advisory in nature. The final
decision as to whether the flight can be conducted
safely rests solely with the pilot. Upon receiving a
“VFR flight not recommended” statement, the
non−IFR rated pilot will need to make a “go or no go”
decision. This decision should be based on weighing
the current and forecast weather conditions against
the pilot’s experience and ratings. The aircraft’s
equipment, capabilities and limitations should also
be considered.

So, pretty much ANY time there are forecast conditions ANYwhere along the route of flight that might have any substantial reduction in visibility or ceiling, briefers are going to default to the boilerplate.

What do WE do in those cases? LISTEN to the forecast conditions themselves, and make our own decision.

Re-read that "marginal VFR" definition: Ceiling 1,000 to 3,000 feet and/or visibility 3 to 5 miles inclusive. So, you can have a FORECAST (not actual weather in other words) that calls for a ceiling of 2500 feet and unrestricted visibility and you'll more than likely get the "VFR flight not recommended".

But, that's when us pilot types are expected to do some of that pilot stuff. As in make a decision, based on OUR OWN assessment of the weather, both actual and forecasted.

Another boilerplate is the notation that "Thunderstorms suggest severe turbulence, hail, etc, etc." No joke. So....don't fly into a thunderstorm.

Boilerplate is just that. Don't let it distract you from your primary task, which is trying to figure out if YOU (not me, not some other guy) can SAFELY fly your airplane from point a to point b TODAY. Sometimes that's hard to do. And, sometimes we make bad decisions.

But, as the old saying goes: Better to be down here, wishing you were up there, than up there, wishing you were down here on the ground.

MTV

Seems like the "vfr flight not recommended" covers the feds for not sending you into any kind of weather and keeping the lawyers at bay.
A while back my friend was getting a briefing and the guy kept telling him how marginal it was and finally asked if he was ifr rated to which he replied "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night" and hung up.

mtv already covered the details, so I'll just add my view...

The default requirement is based on the presumption that any pilot getting a briefing has just gotten their certificate yesterday and is barely capable of sound judgement in flight. The trick is how to hear what they say and evaluate the actual conditions relative to your knowledge of what constitutes safe conditions for you to operate your aircraft. After a bazillion 'vfr not recommended' briefings, the trick is how to pay attention well enough to hear when they have information that really should make you scrub it.

I have had the briefers actually getting somewhat agitated on the phone when I get a briefing and am intending to launch. I have found that explaining my thought process as to how I'll get weather updates and what my route and alternate options will be in case I actually can't make the flight have helped calm them down in some instances. But it isn't my, or your, job to do that, just passing on my experiences.

mtv wrote:
I always self brief, then call a briefer to get something on record, and occasionally, I'll hear something from the briefer that I missed, so it's not necessarily redundant.

Mike

Would you elaborate on this a little bit please? I personally check many different weather sources before finally filing a flight plan. I have found that FAA rarely has anything to add that I haven't already found out through my own research. In fact I find it frustrating that I do my research and then on those rare occasions that I do talk to flight service about weather, they never have anything new and enlightening to add. And Matt, rather then driving 80 miles to Tahnita pass to see for yourself, why not fly? I do that at Tahnita all the time and in fact had to turn around twice on Monday because of pass conditions. But at least I wasn't on the ground stewing about an FAA briefing.

But Mike my real question, is why is it necessary to "get something on record." Frankly if I crashed and they wanted to find out if I checked weather before taking off, they could check my computer and find out that I consulted multiple weather sites.

Just wondering.

Nizina

The weather here in Alaska is always changing do to the Mountains and the coast. You have to use good judgment on going or not going. I lessen to the weather , then call the briffer flight service. If it looks good to me I check it out in flight. One can always turn around and head back. At least you get some air time in. Use good judgment is what piloting is about.

Nizina wrote:

mtv wrote:
I always self brief, then call a briefer to get something on record, and occasionally, I'll hear something from the briefer that I missed, so it's not necessarily redundant.

Mike

Would you elaborate on this a little bit please? I personally check many different weather sources before finally filing a flight plan. I have found that FAA rarely has anything to add that I haven't already found out through my own research. In fact I find it frustrating that I do my research and then on those rare occasions that I do talk to flight service about weather, they never have anything new and enlightening to add. And Matt, rather then driving 80 miles to Tahnita pass to see for yourself, why not fly? I do that at Tahnita all the time and in fact had to turn around twice on Monday because of pass conditions. But at least I wasn't on the ground stewing about an FAA briefing.

But Mike my real question, is why is it necessary to "get something on record." Frankly if I crashed and they wanted to find out if I checked weather before taking off, they could check my computer and find out that I consulted multiple weather sites.

Just wondering.

Nizina

The most common error that I make in my pre-flight weather briefings is notams. As in TFRs. I've missed a few of those, though the weather briefing sites out there are getting better and better all the time.

As to your question regarding "getting something on record": The FAA doesn't have access to your computer. Oh, they could eventually get there, I suppose, but remember, the FAA is involved generally in civil law, and only rarely gets involved in criminal law. So getting a subpoena to access your computer records might be difficult. So, you provide access to your computer, right? You actually think there aren't thousands of folks out there who couldn't create "the appearance" of accessing weather data? Also, just because you access a weather site doesn't mean that weather site provided ALL the required components of a "standard briefing".

If you don't like dealing with AFSS, sign up with DUAT or DUATS. Both provide the same service as AFSS, only on line, and you won't be offended with the "VFR flight not recommended". AND, both those services are not only comprehensive, BUT, they are also recorded.

So, if down the road there's an issue, the FAA simply checks with the vendors and finds a standard briefing, and they know EXACTLY what products you received. Of course, you may not have actually READ them....but that's not the FAA's problem is it?

MTV

Thanks MTV

I always use DUATS, often several times prior to a flight, in addition to many other weather sites. I use DUATS both for weather briefings and for filing flight plans. I have nothing against using the FAA briefings, but find that I often go to DUATS and other sites several times prior to a flight in order to get weather trends in addition to forecasts and present weather conditions. I can't get this from FAA unless I bug them frequently -- and I know how that would go down with them eventually.

Good to know that DUATS is recorded!!!!

Nizina

I too find Fairbanks AFSS to be a bit better than Kenai.

Remember than in Alaska FSS specialists are up to their eyeballs in missing/ overdue /accident aircraft procedures. Easy to be cranky about flying in what they perceive to be less than ideal conditions.

I use Nav Monster and AvnWx on my computer as well as a couple apps on my phone and XM in the plane. Personally I just don't care about leaving behind a trail for the FAA to catch. The "official" sources can't hold a candle to these. But you have to do what makes you comfortable.

Bonanza Man wrote:I use Nav Monster and AvnWx on my computer as well as a couple apps on my phone and XM in the plane. Personally I just don't care about leaving behind a trail for the FAA to catch. The "official" sources can't hold a candle to these. But you have to do what makes you comfortable.

I just visited both of these sites and they are really quite good. We don't get XM up here. I particularly like Nav Monster.

Thanks for the information.

Nizina

Anyone have a clue when we might get XM weather in Alaska? I tried to research this yesterday on the web and all the info I found was 3 to 5 years old. I learned that Sirius merged with XM and that might broaden coverage but no mention of when we get service in Alaska. Anyone?

Bill

Beeman,

I believe the issue with XM weather coverage in Alaska is the latitude. These services are provided by Geosynchronous satellites, ie: satellites that live right over the equator, and rotate with the earth. As you go further north, geosynchronous satellite coverage becomes poorer and poorer, due to the curvature of the earth.

XM coverage probably does cover part of Alaska, so the other requirement would be for them to provide Alaska products, but if the coverage is poor, it may not be economically feasible to provide the service.

MTV

Sirius who owns XM has long range plans to reposition satellites and short term plans to establish terrestrial repeaters (ground based broadcasting antennas) near the four major population markets. Whther any of this is for data services or simply for audio channels is unknown to me.

Last time I checked most weather products were not available for Alaska above latitude 60 even if you could get a signal.