Prior to takeoff, pilots usually want the latest weather data so they can predict conditions along their intended routes. In Alaska, less data interpretation comes into play because pilots can now view real-time video images of where they’re heading. For any pilot, it’s a huge benefit to see exact images of the immediate destination — especially in weather-tossed Alaska.
Begun in 2000, the Alaskan Region Weather Camera Program now has about 60 cameras around the state, which send images to a common web page. Pilots, controllers and flight service station (FSS) personnel log on to http://akweathercams.faa.gov.
Once there, they see a map of Alaska divided into several main regions. Each main region has about 10-15 camera locations. Individual areas that are particularly tricky require multiple cameras. For example, Lake Clarke Pass, an important but often stormy route to western Alaska, sports two cameras.
The state’s varied geography and ecosystems, from its coastal regions to its mountains to its low-lying interior, translate into weather patterns that “change amazingly rapidly,” says Sue Gardner, who manages the camera program for the FAA Alaskan Southern Region Office. With only eight inter-city roads in the state and so much of the state’s commerce and social life made possible by the airways, pilots “need every tool they can get.”
Each live camera shot on the web site appears side-by-side with a view from the same camera on a perfectly clear day. Such comparisons make it easier to discern fronts and cloud cover, salient landmarks such as mountain ridges, and exactly how conditions are affecting visibility.
Moreover, the same page with the site-specific camera views also depicts the local weather forecast in the standard coded form pilots are accustomed to interpreting; topographical and sectional maps (both can be enlarged to fit the screen); and the time of sunset and sunrise.
Finally, there’s also this disclaimer: “Images are provided as an additional source of information only and are not meant to replace official weather information.”
Gardner says the cameras are not intended to replace the data from an automated weather observing system (AWOS) or automated weather-sensing systems (AWSS), but complement them. In fact, FAA has been co-locating cameras with AWOS or AWSS stations. While the latter systems get readings on such things as temperature and humidity, the cameras help determine visibility. The two together provide “a more holistic view of the weather,” Gardner says.
“It’s all about having that picture and seeing it for yourself, instead of trying to interpret a digital readout, or having [someone at FSS] or a dispatcher trying to interpret it for you,” says Gardner. Pilots say they can still talk to the FSS folks or the dispatchers, but by looking at the video images, they can make decisions about takeoff time and routes more quickly and with more confidence.
When the cameras first started going up, pilots were naturally a bit skeptical that they were going to do any good. Now, they generally don’t go anywhere in the state without first checking the web site, or having someone check it for them, Gardner says.
Only three years into the program in 2003, FAA surveyed pilots who had just made a decision to takeoff, based on consulting the usual weather data. Among those who also looked at the video images, 68 percent of the time the data altered their decision and delayed or canceled a planned takeoff.
Then again, it’s not only general aviation pilots making use of the cameras; it’s also commercial carriers in the state, such as Alaska Air and PenAir.
Bryan Carricaburu, chief pilot for PenAir, is a fan of the cameras. At Dutch Harbor, which is in the middle of the Aleutian Islands out west of the state’s landmass, the runway is built on an island. The only approach comes in from the Bering Sea. A camera points out across the water, opposite the direction of approach. “There are points 5 miles out, [so] if you can see those, you’ve got a pretty clear approach,” Carricaburu says.
Prior to having the cameras, commercial pilots flying to Dutch Harbor could reach the harbor, but often had trouble landing, he adds. The success rate in landing was actually about 80 percent. Now it’s closer to about 95 percent. That remaining 5 percent primarily stems from the fact that the weather can still deteriorate from the last time a camera was checked, which may have been on the ground in Anchorage.
This leads into the biggest limitation of the cameras that both Carricaburu and Gardner identified for Air Safety Week — that they are confined to a web site. To see the images, pilots must access the web site as close to takeoff as possible. Or, once in the air, FSS or a dispatcher has to interpret the images for them. Many general aviation pilots also have trained their spouses to use the site and how to describe the images, Gardner says.
Consequently, the next step is to get the images into the cockpit. For that, there are two basic alternatives, Gardner explains: uplink the video data from ground-based transceivers and incorporate it directly into to the cockpit display, or enable transmission onto an electronic flight bag or laptop computer.
The Alaskan camera system also was recently extended into Canada to the north end of White Pass, a highly traveled region with a high number of accidents. There also are arrangements pending with the Russian government to install a camera at Provydenia in that country, along a VFR flyway between Alaska and Russia. Chilean aviation officials, who also must contend with mountainous and coastal terrain, are already imitating the Alaskan example, with several cameras and a similarly set-up web site.
Gardner wants to call the attention of all pilots to two links at the top the main web page: “Survey”, for commenting on how well the weathercams assisted them in their travels, and “Feedback”, about the navigability of the web site itself.
>>Contacts: Bryan Carricaburu, PenAir, (907) 376-7290, [email protected]; Sue Gardner, (907) 271-5544<<