260+ mph flight level gust - Katrina

[weunice]

This may have been asked already but is the 260 mph flight level gust found in Katrina a record? Has this reading been discredited in any way?

Just curious ...

[Swimdude]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that i'm glad I wasn't in the airplane during that.

[sweetpea]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that i'm glad I wasn't in the airplane during that.

LOL, you are not kidding. Might have gotten a little sick with that one.

[senorpepr]

This may have been asked already but is the 260 mph flight level gust found in Katrina a record? Has this reading been discredited in any way?

Just curious ...

Well, first, the dropsonde has not been confirmed. Most likely it will be discredited. However, if it is verified, I believe there may have been higher winds recorded in typhoons during the recon era, although I'm not positive.

[Air Force Met]

This may have been asked already but is the 260 mph flight level gust found in Katrina a record? Has this reading been discredited in any way?

Just curious ...

Well, first, the dropsonde has not been confirmed. Most likely it will be discredited. However, if it is verified, I believe there may have been higher winds recorded in typhoons during the recon era, although I'm not positive.

I think it will be discredited. Reason? Because the winds 2mb above and 2 mb below were in line with all the other winds. If this was the actual wind...you would not expect it to be that high at only one level...and then back in the 180 mph range 70 feet above and 70 feet below. Doesn't make sense.

[senorpepr]

This may have been asked already but is the 260 mph flight level gust found in Katrina a record? Has this reading been discredited in any way?

Just curious ...

Well, first, the dropsonde has not been confirmed. Most likely it will be discredited. However, if it is verified, I believe there may have been higher winds recorded in typhoons during the recon era, although I'm not positive.

I think it will be discredited. Reason? Because the winds 2mb above and 2 mb below were in line with all the other winds. If this was the actual wind...you would not expect it to be that high at only one level...and then back in the 180 mph range 70 feet above and 70 feet below. Doesn't make sense.

Exactly.

919mb winds: N (N/A°) @ N/A mph
913mb winds: ENE (65°) @ 181 mph
908mb winds: ENE (60°) @ 185 mph
905mb winds: ENE (65°) @ 181 mph
900mb winds: ENE (70°) @ 182 mph
895mb winds: ENE (75°) @ 190 mph
887mb winds: ENE (75°) @ 185 mph
884mb winds: E (80°) @ 206 mph
882mb winds: E (80°) @ 209 mph
880mb winds: E (85°) @ 207 mph
877mb winds: E (90°) @ 194 mph
871mb winds: E (85°) @ 199 mph
868mb winds: E (85°) @ 213 mph
866mb winds: ESE (105°) @ 270 mph
853mb winds: E (100°) @ 200 mph
842mb winds: ESE (110°) @ 192 mph
822mb winds: ESE (115°) @ 212 mph
803mb winds: ESE (120°) @ 179 mph
793mb winds: ESE (120°) @ 192 mph
777mb winds: SE (130°) @ 135 mph
769mb winds: SE (130°) @ 131 mph
697mb winds: SE (135°) @ 138 mph

[melhow]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that i'm glad I wasn't in the airplane during that.

LOL, you are not kidding. Might have gotten a little sick with that one.

You know, I've often wondered how bad the conditions would be in flight in hurricane force winds. Is is like flying to Europe, where you can have a 190 knot head wind and not feel it all that much? Or do you bounce around like popcorn? Any mets who have made the flights have an experience to share?

[Frank2]

I've been told that because of their structure, major or intense hurricanes sometimes have less turbulence than systems like TD16, though eyewall penetrations are another matter...
One NOAA crew in Hurricane Hugo (1989) had a very bad time on one particular flight, losing one engine (with another in trouble) on an inbound eyewall penetration, which then forced them to remain in the eye for a period of time (if I recall, it was about 30 minutes), while dumping enough fuel (in order to gain enough altitude) to make the outbound penetration safely, since they believed that making the outbound penetration on only 2 good engines to be far too dangerous.

That was scary, since 1/3 of our staff was aboard that flight...

Frank

[P.K.]

I think it will be discredited. Reason? Because the winds 2mb above and 2 mb below were in line with all the other winds. If this was the actual wind...you would not expect it to be that high at only one level...and then back in the 180 mph range 70 feet above and 70 feet below. Doesn't make sense.

I did think it seemed rather a large change over a distance of only around 20m below and above that level. How often do these sort of strange readings occur with these dropsondes?

[brunota2003]

I've been told that because of their structure, major or intense hurricanes sometimes have less turbulence than systems like TD16, though eyewall penetrations are another matter...
One NOAA crew in Hurricane Hugo (1989) had a very bad time on one particular flight, losing one engine (with another in trouble) on an inbound eyewall penetration, which then forced them to remain in the eye for a period of time (if I recall, it was about 30 minutes), while dumping enough fuel (in order to gain enough altitude) to make the outbound penetration safely, since they believed that making the outbound penetration on only 2 good engines to be far too dangerous.

That was scary, since 1/3 of our staff was aboard that flight...

Frank

Here's the link to the page about that flight: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hugo1.asp
Pretty interesting flight, I'm glad they made it out OK.

[Frank2]

Thanks very much for that link - good grief - I'd forgotten that Dr. Jeff Masters was on that flight (it's only been 16 years).

In reading it, I can recall the staff was still shaken (and stirred emotionally) upon their return to us at the HRD.

Being a backup crew member in the early 1980's, I only flew once - that also on NOAA 42, but the most exciting moment on my flight was when we developed an oil leak in the No. 3 engine just offshore Havana, but aside from that, nothing like my poor co-workers went through in 1989, though I was given a surprise on our take-off from Miami International Airport (MIA was home base for NOAA at that time) when the flight crew decided to fly into one of those late afternoon South Florida thunderstorms to calibrate some equipment - one of those CB's that make you comment, "Gee, glad I'm not flying into that one!".

For the crew on Jeff's flight, that was as close as it gets, as they say...

Frank

[f5]

Can you Imagine what 270 mph surface winds at landfall would be like?

[Aslkahuna]

Eyewall dropsonde reports are a fairly new development so there's no such data available for WPAC typhoons. Could have been a close lightning strike that glitched up the GPS signal reception on that one bad report since at the time Katrina was deepening and at peak intensity there was an extraordinary amount of lightning in the storm-not just the eyewall but in the spiral bands as well-goes along with the very cold cloud tops detected by satellite.

Steve

[stu]

I think that it is a glich...

868mb winds: E (85°) @ 213 mph
866mb winds: ESE (105°) @ 270 mph
853mb winds: E (100°) @ 200 mph

More like


868mb winds: E (85°) @ 213 mph
866mb winds: ESE (105°) @ 207 mph
853mb winds: E (100°) @ 200 mph

Think about it.......

[SouthFloridawx]

I think that it is a glich...

868mb winds: E (85°) @ 213 mph
866mb winds: ESE (105°) @ 270 mph
853mb winds: E (100°) @ 200 mph

More like


868mb winds: E (85°) @ 213 mph
866mb winds: ESE (105°) @ 207 mph
853mb winds: E (100°) @ 200 mph

Think about it.......

No wonder the surge was so bad. Those winds were kicking up that water in the gulf.

[stu]

Those winds at 860mb were about 10,000 feet above the surface.

[P.K.]

That would make more sense Stu but the dropsonde measurements are in kts not mph so I doubt you could confuse 234kts with 180kts, whereas an error could be made between 207 and 270mph.

860hPa isn't 3km up though in this case. That is the height the recon planes fly at around 700hPa.

[stu]

Thank P.K. we talk on a forum over 5000 miles away - does any one have the RAW data - I would like to see it.

[P.K.]

Paul Brown posted this on the TORRO forum, looks to be this dropsonde to me.

UJXX21 KAWN 281500 RRD
XXBB 78148 99261 70879 08167 00919 26800 11909 24600 22850 22001
33789 19803 44783 21401 55777 20602 66705 17000 77697 13600
21212 00919 ///// 11913 06657 22908 06161 33905 06657 44900 07158
55895 07665 66887 07661 77884 08179 88882 08181 99880 08680 11877
09168 22871 08673 33868 08685 44866 10734 55853 10174 66842 11167
77822 11684 88803 12155 99793 12167 11777 13117 22769 13114 33697
13620
31313 09608 81421
61616 AF302 1712A KATRINA OB 23
62626 EYEWALL 045 SPL 2621N08809W 1425 LST WND 063 MBL WND 07666
AEV 20507 DLM WND 11135 913707 WL150 06658 138

[Aslkahuna]

Normal height for 866mb height is around 4000 ft. Given that the sea level pressure was well below standard, the actual height of the 866mb surface was probably not too from from being at 2000'.

Steve