NASA is funding a project run by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) to identify areas of rapidly developing turbulence and storms over remote areas of the ocean.
The scientist are working on a way to predict areas of turbulence in clear skies and within storms. By predicting the areas of turbulence, the system can help guide pilots away from such areas and potentially avoid disasters such as what happened to flight 447. They are trying to accomplish this by applying artificial intelligence to satellite data and computer generated models of weather.
Although there is already a system in place, over the continental Unite States, that alerts pilots and air traffic controllers to turbulence, alerting pilots who fly over open ocean is harder to accomplish. Pilots who fly over oceans do get information from weather satellites, but they don’t provide as many images or measure turbulence.
The system is expected to be tested by pilots next year.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
This is a good idea, but not a panacea. In the winter months, with nearly every weather briefing we get from the FAA (Now contracted though Lockheed Martin) there are warnings of possible icing because the computer model predicted it. This is wrong 95% of the time, from my experience.
But any additional information is helpful.
well, I am not sure how things work for aviation. But it is safe to say, it is better to mark a safe area as dangerous than the other way around?
For icing, its become like the boy who cries “Wolf”… it has reduced safty. I hope this system does not result in the same affect. All airlines have their own on-board radar and lightning detection systems, so they are rather good about seeing where they should not be going. More information is always helpfull.
in all honesty, I mean lets just look at the records here, Recently you have just had Air France and the Yemenia crashes. 2 crashes in a month is not that bad, considering that these airlines have over 1000+ flights daily, well I can’t speak for the Yemenia since reports have shown that they had issues with their aircrafts. However major reliable airlines like Air France, have had solid records and despite this crash it continues to be one of the safest airlines.
I really wish I had more knowledge about this, but I think that the airlines have enough capabilities to be able to carry on a safe flight. Just every now and then you run into such disasters. Where in multiple little things go wrong.
However, that research project is conducted by NASA surely this project must have underwent heavy evaluations before being approved. Unless of course someone has some vested interest behind it and is attempting to market something for their own profits.
Hello,
Rami wrote
However major reliable airlines like Air France, have had solid records and despite this crash it continues to be one of the safest airlines.
Could you please review the past history of Air France and Yemenia airlines and compare their records about safety and accidents .. and also review the record of the safest airlines about safety in general
Unfortunately for Air France (all statistics numbers flatten to proportion) they are on the seat N° 68 !!
AF is certainly safest when you compare with third world airlines but certainly not when compare with airlines of develloped countries … IMHO
Regards.
Why not just avoid know weather areas period. Make a delay and wait for better weather (flying conditions) or take the time to fly around the hazard area.
Based on what they will pay out on AF447 claims alone, how much more fuel could they have burned to go around the area in the first place and land safely? Saced a few bucks on fuel – flew into or too close to storm and now will pay out MILLIONs.
Now aside from the weather potential – they need the black boxes to make sure the plane does not have hidden catastrophic failures, which in a complex machine like an Airbus is always a possibility (small but possible).
Ok Gus,
Thanks for the input
Gus Audiber:
Where in the world do you get your information?
I am not partial to Air France, I don’t necessarily like them but for other reasons. However, you are resolutely wrong on the safety record. They are one of the safest airlines in operations today.
Their last fatal crash (Concorde a few years ago) was not AF’s fault.
A US plane (United or Continental or whatever) had taken off right before and had debris falling from the plane on the runway (pieces of metal if I remember).
The tires on the Concorde hit those debris on take-off, blowing one or more of the tires and throwing tire debris inside one engine, setting it on fire at the worst possible moment (transition V1-V2).
Then, priot to it, to get a major AF disaster, you have to go back to 1962 (0r 63/) with a 707. Look at many of our US airlines…. and compare the record.
I am making to you the same comment (if I may) that I have made systematically all over this blog. Please, know what you a re talking about and do not mistake raw and emotional reaction with scientific and statistical facts. Your seat No 68 may looks cute on the screen and might impress folks who don’t know anything about the air industry, but it is plainly wrong on the facts.
Pat.
Kris,
Airports will be shut down in conditions are no longer safe for taking off and landing operations. But what happens to airplanes in the air?
It is not always possible to go around nasty weather.
For example, flying inside the US during the summer months, it is not unusual to see unbroken lines of thunderstorms stretching 100 kms of more. . You can try to deviate a few miles or a few dozen miles but you cannot deviate hundreds of miles.
Also you cannot go over clouds which top at 40,000 to 50,000 ft when your top operating altitude is 35,000 ft.
Your only solution is to fly through the storm.
How do you do it? You use your weather radar in different modes to be able to find an opening in the clouds. Sometimes you will find it. Your passengers will feel some bumps but will have no idea what you had to do to find an opening. Sometimes you simply cannot. This is why pilots have alternate (emergency) landing airfields in such a situation. However, when flying above the ocean you don’t have such luxury.
Pat.
Pat –
Thanks for the basic explanation of the obvious but you missed the point I was making. Weather can always be avoided or minimized and so should be. If weather can’t be avoided don’t fly there – smple as that. There is never an issue important enough that says take extra risks with an aircraft and passengers.
Also, AF447 could have moved around certain parts of the difficult weather it excperienced. Other flights in the area did and avoided exposure to unnecessary risks in flight.
Makes good common sense and logic.
Too dangerous, don’t do it. Not worth the risks.
Why do airlines still fly in terrible weather the pilots would not fly into in their own planes with their kids on board?
Demand. Period. The flying public has become accustomed to jet airliners being almost unstoppable due to weather. They accept the bumps to get to their location when they want to, even it they don’t understand the risks. Look how many years when by from 2001 until the next airline crash. At any one time in the US there are 4000 – 5000 airliners in the air – that’s quite the safety record.
The main cause of the AF 447 crash was due to the icing of the pitot tubes, as argued by the investigators. Air France Airbus fleet was ready to replace the same. What about other major airlines that use the same pitot tubes? Will they prefer to risk the lives of thousands of passengers until a mishap occurs again. It is high time to take action. Prevention is better than cure.