Aerial Chasing?

[Skip Talbot]

Sounds great. Do it in a T-6 Texan.

I was lucky enough to get a ride in a T-6 one year up at Oshkosh. We did formation aerobatics including rolls and loops with three other planes. It was definitely the most awesome flight I've ever been on.

For chasing though I would like something with more modern avionics and something that seats side by side rather than tandem. Man, a T-6 in front of a rope would be awesome photo op though.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Thought I'd bump this old thread with some observations on how our aerial chasing went. It's been almost four years since I started this thread, I've gotten my private pilot's certificate since then and was able to live one of my dreams chasing in an airplane last week. Caleb Elliott, Phil Bates, and I took a Cessna 182 up on 5/22, 5/23, and 5/25. We were on tornado warned supercells all three days with spectacular views of updrafts and wall clouds, but we couldn't get the coveted tornado shot. On 5/22 we weren't in position soon enough on the North Dakota storm to get the brief tornado, on 5/23 our storm near Omaha didn't produce, and on 5/25 we had to abandon the storm to get fuel before it produced several tornadoes.

I had my doubts going in as to whether aerial chasing was feasible or even remotely safe. We quickly found that it's not only feasible, but also quite safe when the right precautions are taken. The key seems to be maintaining visual flight rules at all times, situational awareness, and avoiding extreme wind shear, turbulence, and hail. Much of this can be accomplished by not flying under, through, or above any thunderstorms (or updrafts), and only chasing setups with isolated to widely scattered storms confined to a boundary. The ideal setups seem to be triple points, drylines, and possibly cold fronts. Warm fronts seem to have too much convection near the storms to maintain VFR. Our cold front setup featured quite a bit of turbulence, but it may have just been that one instance. Days where the whole warm sector lights up seem quite dangerous as you could get boxed in quickly with no place to escape and then forced into a potentially deadly core punch.

We held a position east to southeast of the RFB by about 2-5 miles at 1000 to 3000 feet above the ground. This seemed to be the sweet spot for getting structure shots in relatively smooth air. We worried about hitting shear from outflow or turbulence from surface induced friction at lower altitudes, or from the gust front getting any closer. We did bump into the gust front a couple times and were greeted by some mild to moderate turbulence. We'd simply to turn east or southeast at the point and we were back in smooth air. The smoothest air was in the shadow of the anvil or in the inflow. In the hot sunny air away from the storm, thermals made the flight quite bumpy and moderate turbulence was encountered on any boundary, gust front, or outflow from the storm. I think we probably could have pushed through the gust front to smoother air on the other side, and I bet much of the air under the RFB is smooth, but the risk of encountering downdrafts or large hail at the low altitudes needed to stay under the RFB was too geat so we didn't consider attempting that. We encountered hail once. On 5/22 in ND we got a little close to the forward flank and encountered some small, very soft hail, which would have probably reached the ground as rain. We turned south as soon as we noticed it without incident. Holding that sweet spot the rest of the chases, however, we never encountered any storm precip.

For tornadoes, it appeared that the base of the storm and wall cloud at least partially obscured the region most likely to produce at altitude. Since flying under the storm wasn't an option, the best way to get a view would probably be to fly low and far enough out to be away from any gust fronts. Even if there was clear air behind the tornado, you'd still be at risk of hitting the RFD or severe turbulence in the wake of the storm. You'd need a long lens to shoot a tornado from an airplane, or get lucky and have a tornado under a high RFB without a wall cloud. A helicopter would probably be best for this purpose as they can hover not far off the ground while surface conditions allow and use a really long lens to get a look under the storm. Range, operating and fuel expenses would make them less than ideal for aerial chasing otherwise. I wish we had more chances to shoot tornadoes, but our best opportunity was cut short by the plane's limited flight time.

Overall I was extremely impressed with how well the flights went and how safe it seemed holding the sweet spot ahead of the storm. Its important to note that while the views are spectacular up there, and there are many advantages to aerial chasing, there is also a whole new set of problems and its actually hard work and very demanding on the body. You're not limited by roads or terrain, but you are limited by maintaining VFR, flight time, and avoiding turbulence and hail. Anyone prone to motion sickness is in for a world of hurt too. We hit turbulence for good stretches of most of our chases, and trying to concentrate and work with the bumps is extremely demanding. We were exhausted when we landed in Minot, just complete zombies. Crossing the cold front on 5/23 near Omaha as convection was going up, we hit bumps so bad that my laptop came up several inches off the seat, and Phil and Caleb were ducking so they wouldn't bang their heads on the ceiling. I was so green when we landed that I was effectively useless and had to sprawl out on a couch and recuperate for a bit before I could do anything. Despite the unique views, you miss much of the ground based experience while in the air. You don't get to feel the winds, smell the plains grass and rain, hear the thunder, or just relax. I realized how much I missed these things when we chased the more down days on 5/26 and 5/27 on the ground. I do still want a tube from the air though, so I think Caleb and I will definitely be trying again sometime in the future.

Some galleries I posted to Facebook which are public (you'll still need an account though I think):
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10100251305858061.2361972.22012908&type=3
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10100252161283781.2362069.22012908&type=3
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10100256340693211.2362704.22012908&type=3

 

[MClarkson]

Awesome! I am going to have to try this some day. Did you base out of the same airport each day or use your speed to easily end up at the next days target point?

 

[Skip Talbot]

We based out of KOJC near Kansas City, and can hit a target at the Canadian border leaving the day of the event with a couple of fuel stops. On 5/22, we stayed up in Minot for the night as we were way too tired to do anymore flying after going all the way up there and then chasing for a couple hours. We chased on the way back the next day, and then took off and returned to KOJC on our last chase on Friday (with a fuel stop).

You can certainly reposition for the next day's target easily. The airports we stopped at were extremely courteous, providing hotel reservations for us and a free courtesy car. The trick is getting there before they close. If you land late at some tiny airport, you could very well spend the night in the plane/on the ramp. Getting back to home base is easier with the faster plane, but I found you fatigue a lot faster when flying than you do driving. We'll probably focus on local chases for future aerial chases, hitting setups within 100 miles of home base so we can take off and land at the same airport without refueling.

 

[Chris Gullikson]

Skip,

Enjoyed reading about your experience in the air, going to have to go back and read the rest of this topic.

Obviously you want to stay VFR but just curious if either of you guys have instrument rating or at least some hood time in case you get into clouds for a bit.
Do you use a transponder and squawk 7000 when flying in E or G airspace? Have you been near any Class D or C towers where they are asking what you guys are doing?
How does the high wing 182 work for this? Do you think a low wing would work better?
What kind of fuel burn you getting with that 182 and how slow can you comfortably fly it when in position on a storm?
I totally understand how you feel doing this for a few hours...I have about 1000 hours PIC of a light sport aircraft but the few times I have been passenger doing survey work...yeah...that can take a lot out of you if you don't have the stomach for it.
I so want to do this and will be going for my private this year and may even go for a rotorcraft rating.

Chris

 

[Skip Talbot]

Obviously you want to stay VFR but just curious if either of you guys have instrument rating or at least some hood time in case you get into clouds for a bit.

I'm a super green 60 hours private pilot, but Caleb has his IFR, CFI, and was a commercial jet pilot for some years. He was PIC for all of our aerial chases, as I'm just a little too green to attempt these flights myself. I believe I'm a little more experienced in ground based chasing and forecasting though, so there was a nice overlap in experience. Some of our legs to the target areas were IFR.

Do you use a transponder and squawk 7000 when flying in E or G airspace? Have you been near any Class D or C towers where they are asking what you guys are doing?

A transponder was required because we were operating in and near the KMCI B airspace. 1200 for our VFR unless the controllers directed us otherwise. We chased in and through both D and C airspaces, which Caleb and I were quite surprised they let us do. I think we were on the radio with Omaha class C center, Caleb: "We'd like to do a racetrack pattern in front of this tornado warned storm west of the field." Center: "...approved." The controllers usually didn't bat an eye when we told them what we were doing, and were very helpful. I was surprised we could chase in controlled airspace, but I believe most of the other traffic was avoiding the storms, so we had the airspace to ourselves for the most part.

How does the high wing 182 work for this? Do you think a low wing would work better?

It depends what you're trying to shoot. If you want the tornado's point of contact on the ground, a high wing would be better I think. For structure, a low wing would get you more of the sky. I've found having a good chunk of ground in our shots to be very effective, however, so a low wing might be less desirable overall unless you can shoot forward or aft of the wing. Caleb was constantly lifting the right wing and giving the plane some opposite rudder for Phil to get his video shots, however. A plane without a wing strut would have been better too.

What kind of fuel burn you getting with that 182 and how slow can you comfortably fly it when in position on a storm?

Something like 8 gph at cruise I believe. We kept it well above stall speed in case we hit turbulence or some wind shear. We wanted to play it safe and not chance a stall at 1000 feet agl with all the pleasantries of a nearby supercell. We probably kept the airspeed above 70 knots, but I'd have to check with Caleb to see how slow we got. I know we had a ground speed of 30-40 mph a couple times because of the crazy headwinds up there.

I so want to do this and will be going for my private this year and may even go for a rotorcraft rating.

Awesome, let me know if you ever want to team up. You're a lot closer to my location than KC and I could definitely use more aerial chase partners!

 

[Eric Matthews]

I'm jealous of your trips, but happy that 4 years of planning materialized in some safe chases. Were any parts of the storm structure easier/harder to identify? Any part of the structure look significantly different from the air?

 

[Skip Talbot]

Were any parts of the storm structure easier/harder to identify? Any part of the structure look significantly different from the air?

The wall clouds looked quite a bit larger from the air, and initially I'd mistake them for a larger part of the rain free base. You can't see under the base at the altitude we were operating at, so funnels, RFD clears slots, and low level rotation obscured by the wall cloud would have definitely have been harder to pick out. Flying south, the storm's rotation was artificially enhanced as you were going against the left to right movement of the foreground clouds, which appeared to move much faster than the right to left moving background clouds. That was a neat effect.

 

[Chris Gullikson]

Skip,
Thanks for the responses to my questions. I see that Russ Niles picked up your adventures at http://www.avweb.com - very cool!!

Would love to chase with you sometime. I am actually in the Lake Zurich IL area.

 

[Chuck Robertson]

Skip,
Interesting subject. I am a storm chaser, a pilot, and an owner of a Piper Cherokee 140, so naturally, I constantly get asked the question, "Do you use your plane to chase tornadoes?". To be honest, my reply has always been "Are you crazy?". Please don't take that as disrespectful. I admire your courage and innovation. But I have hesitation in mixing chasing and flying.

So I will definitely want to follow your stories regarding this subject, but PLEASE BE CAREFUL!!!! I agree with the perils you and others have listed, but I would like to add one more. Making a sharp turn from a headwind to a tailwind at slow airspeed. As you know, given constant groundspeed, your airspeed will suddenly plummet. But you will also recall in your training what is called the "accelerated stall" (a stall which can occur more easily due to high bank angle). A maneuver in such conditions could have both of these effects simultaneously, which could be disastrous. I'm not a CFI, so I dont want to pretend I know more than I do, but just please keep this in mind, along with those more obvious perils already discussed like shear, hail, etc.

I am not sure I am ready for actual aerial chasing, but one thing I have considered, at least for distant chasing, is flying my plane to a nearby airport large enough to rent cars, rent a car, and then ground chase from there. This wouldn't help in storm maneuverability, but at least it will get me great distances and back quickly. I currently reside in Alabama, so this could come in very handy for quick chases in the plains. Have you ever considered a strategy such as this to complement your fully aerial chase strategies? If so, please share that as well. My biggest concern has always been getting weathered in for my return home, perhaps the next morning. I am instrument rated, but I will not fly into thunderstorms.

Meanwhile, I am very interested to hear your experiences with aerial chasing. But above all, please be careful!!!!

Chuck Robertson

 

[MClarkson]

"Making a sharp turn from a headwind to a tailwind"

If he's staying in the same air mass that does not matter, as the aircraft is already traveling with that wind. It cannot create changes in airspeed any different from any other similar turn. Only at shear zones (like the downdraft gust front) does the airspeed change on its own.

 

[TrumanBoyer]

per Adam Lucio... "LOL @ :19 on that video...the rocket just says "F this" and goes the other way."

FYI...

The rockets say "f this" because rockets that are stabilized by tail fins will "weather vane".

The "pivot point" of a rocket in flight is its center of gravity.

Rockets that use fins for stabilization need enough surface area on the fins to keep the
"center of pressure" (center of all aerodynamic forces) located behind the center of gravity.

"Weather vane-ing" is the strong tendency of the rocket to act like a weather vane -- any
lateral wind pressure forces the rocket to pivot INTO THE WIND.

In a strong inflow, the rocket will turn away from the tornado.

Try launching a model rocket into a stiff breeze. (I recommend that you stand down wind).
You will see what I mean.

Also -- airplanes lose lift when there is a tailwind factored into the airspeed. Ideally, the pilot
should have taken a spiraling path, clockwise inward toward the funnel. (IMO)

These experiments were very cool, but needed a little more forethought IMO.
I would like to see it tried again, using a rocket with "spin stabilization" or some
other method of keeping it in straight-line flight.

-T

 

[Caleb Elliott]

"Making a sharp turn from a headwind to a tailwind"

If he's staying in the same air mass that does not matter, as the aircraft is already traveling with that wind. It cannot create changes in airspeed any different from any other similar turn. Only at shear zones (like the downdraft gust front) does the airspeed change on its own.

Just an FYI, anytime, regardless of airmass, that air moves from headwind to tailwind or vice versa, there is an associated increase/decrease in aircraft performance. 50kts headwind then turning 180degrees, will yield a slow but noticeable and correctable "shear" to tailwind with a resulting decrease in airfoil airspeed, yet an increase in groundspeed. Officially, every thunderstorm is different, yet the same. There are no rules around storms, other than cardinal rules. Personally, I hope aerial chasing does not become something that everyone attempts, because as soon as the first inexperienced pilot gets killed, the FAA will make new regulations disallowing it.

Also, we had absolutely no worries when flying in the inflow notch. The strongest winds we saw during a tornado warned storm were around 50-55kts. The aircraft we were flying had a cruise speed of 125kts. Easily capable of fleeing the scene, had things gone awry. Remember, the inflow jet is a fuel/air source for tornadogenisis, but it all comes down to cyclostrophic flow in the end...lol.

In hindsight, Skip and I had a great time chasing and Skip did a wonderful job of keeping me up to date on outflow boundaries, frontal positions, and precip cores (hail avoidance). This was merely an experimental attempt with hopes and possibilities of future aerial chases down the road, as it is extremely expensive. It is also extremely dangerous, too. I would not recommend anyone try this without surviving at least 1-2yrs of spring time cargo flying, at a minimum.

Skip, I am looking forward to the next aerial tornado search.

Caleb Elliott
www.wx-pilot.com

 

[MClarkson]

50kts headwind then turning 180degrees, will yield a slow but noticeable and correctable "shear" to tailwind with a resulting decrease in airfoil airspeed

If the plane is making the turn and the wind is unchanged, then no, there will be no difference in airspeed. The wind is moving at 50 knots and the plane is moving at at the same 50 knots plus its airspeed. The turn will occur no differently than if executed in still air. Assuming, of course, that the entire turn is executed within the same air mass with the same wind vector.

 

[Chuck Robertson]

If the plane is making the turn and the wind is unchanged, then no, there will be no difference in airspeed. The wind is moving at 50 knots and the plane is moving at at the same 50 knots plus its airspeed. The turn will occur no differently than if executed in still air. Assuming, of course, that the entire turn is executed within the same air mass with the same wind vector.

Yes, you are correct. Bear in mind however that I included the clause "given constant groundspeed". Perhaps I should clarify the situation I am trying to describe. When flying relatively close to the ground, it is very easy to sense the increase in ground speed during and after sharply turning from a headwind to a tailwind, causing the pilot to feel he/she should reduce the power setting to maintain the same speed in relation to fixed objects, such as runways, and in this case, perhaps a hailshaft or other peril. If the power setting is indeed reduced to maintain relatively constant groundspeed, before you know it, you could look down at your airspeed indicator and be surprised by how much your airspeed has dropped. I have experienced this for myself, and it can be a bit alarming.

The overall point I am trying to make is that with frequently changing wind conditions near a thunderstorm, coupled with numerous possible distractions, this situation may be a bit more likely to occur than otherwise.

But you are correct. The plane itself see's no change in airspeed purely as a result of the turn alone. The pilot must contribute to this peril with an errant input.