The Hurricane Hunters
When Atlantic storms threaten, NOAA pilots answer the call.
- By Paul Hoversten
- Air & Space magazine, January 2012
NOAA's Randy TeBeest with Lockheed WP-3D Kermit
NOAA
Captain Randy TeBeest took command of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Aircraft Operations Center in Tampa, Florida in July 2011. The center, on MacDill Air Force Base, is home to most of NOAA’s 11 research aircraft, including the agency’s WP-3D Orion and Gulfstream IV “hurricane hunter” airplanes. A career aviator, TeBeest was interviewed in September by Executive Editor Paul Hoversten.
Air & Space: The Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program—a 10-year project involving NOAA, NASA, and the National Science Foundation—aims to reduce errors in hurricane intensity forecasts by 50 percent by 2018. How big are the errors and what has been the impact?
TeBeest: We’ve had great success in increasing the forecast errors of track line forecasts, and we’ve come a long way in the past 10 years on that. We haven’t been as successful in forecasting intensity. Hurricane Irene was an idea of where we are now. There was a bit of difficulty in determining what that storm’s intensity would be when it reached landfall, which was the important point. With some of the warm water eddies that are in the gulf and along the coastlines, we’re trying to focus on those kinds of things that makes storms grow rapidly or decays them rapidly. So there’s uncertainty that goes with the intensity and that’s really the focus of the program, which we’re in year three now.
A & S: Will the forecast improvement also improve the track prediction?
TeBeest: I don’t know that there’s a direct correlation. As you look at the intensity and structure of the hurricane, of course you realize benefits from that different data set in all realms of hurricane forecasting. But we use many tools and instruments to determine the track-line forecasting already, and that’s not the objective of the program.
A & S: How has the increase in powerful storms affected the Aircraft Operations Center?
TeBeest: Certainly 2004 and 2005 were extremely busy years for us. We’re base funded for a particular number of hours every year. As we get more storms, that’s a priority mission, so it draws resources from other airborne efforts. It’s a balancing game to figure out where to best use our limited resources.
A & S: How are the tail Doppler radar on NOAA’s two P-3 Orions helping to improve the forecasts?
TeBeest: We’ve had the instrument on the P-3s for some time. We’ve used it for research purposes to determine the structure of hurricanes. What we’re finding now is that the tail Doppler radar data is also useful in improving the intensity forecasts. We’re installing a similar instrument now on our [Gulfstream] G-4, which provides the high-level observation of the whole hurricane. When we fly through hurricanes, we have the lower level P-3s going through the eye wall and the upper-level G-4 that flies around the storm and determines the steering winds. Between those two [aircraft types], it gives us really a good idea of the structure of the storm.
A & S: How much of a beating do the P-3s take when they fly through hurricanes like Irene?
TeBeest: From an airplane standpoint, Irene was not severe. The larger storms like Katrina, the category 4 or 5 storms that have all the well-developed convection in the eye wall, those can be an interesting ride. Something like Irene was slow to get its act together. It was more of a ragged storm and spread out. There’s more turbulence throughout the length of the flight than what you get in a more developed storm, where all the turbulence and convection is really in the rain bands and eye wall. But the airplanes are sturdy aircraft and well proven.
A & S: Have there been any close calls, or is it all pretty safe and steady?
TeBeest: It’s pretty safe and steady. We’ve gotten to the point now where we have quite a bit of experience, many decades of doing this. Our airborne meteorologists and technicians who fly with us each have a role to play and we bring that together and we know where to penetrate an eye wall. We feel pretty confident we can continue to do it safely.
A & S: The P-3s were built in 1975 and 1976. Manufacturer Lockheed’s service analysis recommends either re-winging them or replacing them by 2018. Which do you think should happen?
TeBeest: We would have to look at whether we as an agency and a society value this capability. An observation from an inner eye wall is something we can’t get from a satellite. Rewinging the P-3s would allow us to continue that. The acquisition of a new aircraft is a huge number. To then instrument that aircraft with the right capabilities and instruments would be a significant [financial] effort.
A & S: What sort of background do NOAA pilots have?
TeBeest: We have internally produced pilots who start with the NOAA lighter aircraft and work their way up to a P-3. We also look at the U.S. Navy, which flies the P-3 for its own mission. Quite often we get inter-service transfers from the Navy, folks that are already qualified in the P-3. They come to us as commissioned officers and then we give them some experience in the storm environment and eventually qualify them as hurricane pilots. We get a lot of talent from both avenues.
A & S: What’s the training like?
TeBeest: Every month our pilots are training, it’s that type of job. For the P-3, the Navy is the manager for operating and training at Naval Air Station Jacksonville. We use those folks, their simulators, and their instructor-pilots along with our own instructor-pilots and flight engineers to maintain our proficiencies throughout the year.
A & S: The public expects NOAA to study hurricanes, but do the aircraft fly other missions that might surprise most of us?
Comments