Flying near a tornado

[Scott Nelson]

What are the risks regarding flying a plane or a helicopter near a tornado? (Besides the obvious of getting to close.) The reason I'm asking is in years past, some of my favorite tornadic footage was captured by news helicopters. Recently, a water spout in Alaska was captured by a small plane. Nobody ever seems to call the pilots crazy though so is it relatively safe to be up there once a tornado has actually formed? If conditions are right for a tornado -- wouldn't there be fear of another spinup away from what they are filming? Still learning how inflow and downdraft areas work around a supercell so is anyone up there filming threading the safety needle or is there an actual "SAFE" zone. Even Reed only flys R.C. planes near them. LOL

Cheers,
Scott

 

[Skip Talbot]

I've often pondered flying near tornadoes or supercells as I'm also a student pilot. My main concern would be the extreme windshear. In a downdraft an aircraft loses lift and is pushed towards the ground. If you are flying quite low (let's say because the LCL's are under 1000 and you are trying to stay under the base), I think you run the risk of crashing if you fly under the rear flanking downdraft. Updrafts might not pose an immediate risk of a crash, but you also run the risk of losing control or being vaulted into the storm's core.

Core punching is absolutely out of the question, as severe hail doesn't just end a chase like it can for a ground based chaser, it can disasterously end a flight as well. This is less of a problem in a plane though as you aren't bound to the road grid and can simply fly around the precip core.

I've seen videos of aircraft flying under the rain free base without mishap, I think this is a risky manuever, however, as you never know when you might hit dangerous wind shear or turbulence. Supercells pack more than enough power to exceed the stress limits of a small aircraft, and you could always be knocked into an unusual attitude that could be difficult to recover from at such a low altitude.

That being said, I think if you stay ahead of the rain free base, you could effectively and relatively safely chase in an airplane. I think the view would be unsurpassed and you could avoid many of the problems of ground based chasing, such as limited road options, poor road quality, hill and tree obstructions, chaser hoards, and the difficulty of playing catch up on a fast moving cell.

In the videos you mentioned, the pilots are often not directly in harm's way. The news helicopters are often out from underneath the base of the storm, and have cameras with huge telephoto lenses. Waterspouts are also much weaker than a strong supercellular tornado. Their parent towering cumulus can still create turbulence and wind shear but not to the extreme levels of a mature supercell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIAO1ZPK4vo

 

[Brandon Goforth]

Yeah, flying a plane around those things would be very risky (I've personally never seen a plane flying near a supercell)...helicopters would be the better bet as you could remain stationary out away, but I do remember a news helicopter a few years ago that suddenly got caught in strong inflow and the pilot and photographer were in panic mode for a few minutes...

 

[Skip Talbot]

Helicopters are great for storms approaching a metro area, but they don't have the range to chase throughout the plains, and they don't have the speed to catch up with a storm that is a 100 miles away. Fixed wing aircraft are also a lot more stable in flight, so I would feel a lot safer chasing in one of those. There are aircraft with stall speeds around 30 mph, that would allow you to hold a position relative to a storm's base for an extended period of time.

 

[Mike Smith]

Airborne Debris

There is another issue here which is airborne debris. If ingesting birds can cause a jet engine to stall, I have no doubt shingles and building materials can do the same.

After the 1991 Wichita-Andover Tornado, there was a "rain of shingles" on Emporia. The Doswell-Moller video of the cars aloft in the Pampa, TX tornado certainly illustrates what I am talking about.

I am concerned that, one of these days, the blades of a helicopter, the propeller of an airplane or a jet engine will have an unfortunate encounter with substantial debris aloft.

 

[cdcollura]

Good day all,

Thunderstorms (let alone suprcells) and aviation don't mix.

Observing such storms via airborne platforms (helicopters, FW aircraft, etc) poses a whole different set of risks and challanges.

Viewing a tornado from a helicopter, for example, and it has been done - One of my favorite videos is the "forest tornado" in July '86 in (Fridley?) MN - And the storm environment is something that MUST be considered.

In the "forest tornado" (MN 1986) video, the helicopter circles the tornado many times, zooming in to the "corner region" / contact swirl the whole time as hundreds of trees are destroyed, yet there is little or no turbulence (as far as the video goes - but there had to be some) or problems with hail (which can be devastating to a helicopter).

Other storms are not as easy to observe, due to the mode of the supercell (HP especially), cloud base, and rain / hail wrap. Bottom line is to stay AWAY from the business end of the storm.

Even outside the supercell, there is low and mid-level inflow / boundary interations that can create extreme turbulence. If you see HCRs feeding into the storm, it's not a good idea to try to fly through them ;-)

Hail can be chucked far away from the core and updraft, especially at high altitudes. Giant hail can be encountered under the anvil as well. Ofcourse, any FFD and (especially) RFD areas are to be avoided.

Debris can be lofted by a tornadic supercell and carried long distances (like the bank receipt that landed 26 minutes after the Hallam NE tornado (2004) in Omaha 80 miles away)! Debris (not the actual debris clouds itself) that gets lofted usually follows the "down-wind" path of the storm (under the anvil, NE of the tornado, etc).

Much like chasing (although not as close), the best position for an aircraft (in my own opinion) is 90 degrees right of the tornado's movement (such as SE from the tornado moving NE) in the clear air ahead of the rain-free base at about 2,000 feet AGL. Any lower / closer is not worth the risk.

Keep in mind that a mature supercell storm often has updrafts exceeding 100-150 MPH. Downdrafts, such as the RFD can exceed 100 MPH. The worst areas (besides being at low altitude near these features) are the areas where an updraft and downdraft meet (UDI).

For example, crossing from a 100 MPH updraft into a 100 MPH downdraft (given you are at a safe altitude) causes a "wind shear" (change) of 200 MPH, and if this is over a few hundred feet, like where the RFD and rain-free base meet, this change can happen in a second, imposing G-Forces (loads) on the plane that can cause a mid air breakup.

 

[Wes Carter]

Last year on May 8 (I think) we were chasing the same storm that produced the landspout that Jim Reed ran towards in that video we've all seen. We were East of Garden City and watched as an airplane was going in and out of the storm. It appeared to be following some kind of pattern as if it were collecting data from various parts of the storm. It was up fairly high, maybe 8-10k ft. I wish I knew what they were doing for curiosity's sake.

 

[cdcollura]

Good day all,

The image above is from May 2005 east of Tribune, KS (tornadic supercell) and if you look closely towards the top of the time-exposure image, you'll see at least one or two aircraft (strobes) just ahead of the shelf as the storm was evolving from HP to a line (bow) segment.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Last year on May 8 (I think) we were chasing the same storm that produced the landspout that Jim Reed ran towards in that video we've all seen. We were East of Garden City and watched as an airplane was going in and out of the storm. It appeared to be following some kind of pattern as if it were collecting data from various parts of the storm. It was up fairly high, maybe 8-10k ft. I wish I knew what they were doing for curiosity's sake.

Probably a cloud seeder: http://users.pld.com/wkwmp/

 

[Verne Carlson]

Check out Wayne Meinhards site: http://www.convectionconnection.net/
He has some great storm flying info and videos.

 

[Scott Nelson]

Check out Wayne Meinhards site: http://www.convectionconnection.net/
He has some great storm flying info and videos.

This video looks AMAZING! Not simply as a cool storm video but as a teaching aid too. My H.S. son is a budding meterologist and this could be a good teaching tool for him. Thanks Verne.

 

[Drew.Gardonia]

im wondering could you get an F/A-18 or some other type of high performance super sonic fighter jet to fly into a tornado to collect data?

 

[Mike Smith]

A supersonic fighter would not stand a chance in a tornado. Why? The faster the aircraft moves, the more abrupt the change in vertical motion. The wings or stabilizers would be at high risk for breaking off.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Well, you don't have to fly the fighter jet into the tornado at Mach 2 (not to mention that would be highly illegal). Having a larger, heavier, and stronger airplane would definitely help if you were trying to sample a storm, however. A fighter would be a lot less influenced by the winds than the Cessnas you see in some of these videos, and fighters would handle the stresses from the turbulence and wind shear much better as well.

 

[Mike Smith]

A fighter would be a lot less influenced by the winds than the Cessnas you see in some of these videos, and fighters would handle the stresses from the turbulence and wind shear much better as well.

Please explain. Thanks.