Eclipse!

April 8, 2024

The last US total solar eclipse had been in 2017, and I hadn’t traveled to its path of totality. (The closest area of totality from NYC was in North Carolina, and I was on nights, and didn’t want to take time off, so ended up seeing it from my apartment window.) It was neat, but since then I had read that a total eclipse is so much better than a partial one, and because I had never seen a total, and the next one in North America wasn’t until 2036, I decided to do what it took to see this one, scheduled for April 8, 2024. And since she’s very good at it, and loves doing so, Gretchen started travel planning; we began thinking about this in late 2023, as we knew travel and hotel reservations in the path of totality would fill up quickly.

The eclipse path of totality was set to go from Texas to New England, so we knew we’d have to travel to it. My stepfather and his wife, and my brother and his wife and child (8 years old, a perfect age for a first total eclipse) were already planning to watch the eclipse in Cleveland, so that was our preferred destination. There’s no point in traveling to an eclipse obscured by clouds, though, and after noting that Cleveland average cloud cover is around 50%, and that average cloud cover generally decreases as you move south, we wanted a backup location to Cleveland in case the weather looked like it might be cloudy there. Because it might be difficult to get transportation between an airport/hotel/eclipse viewing spot, Gretchen looked for backup locations with good airline service, and short distances between airport, hotel, and potential viewing location. We decided on Dallas, and for both it and Cleveland, chose hotels and viewing locations close to their respective airports.

We also had to contend with Gretchen and my work schedule; the eclipse, on April 8, 2024, was a Monday of my work week, and though I had taken that night’s shift off, I was still scheduled to be back at work on Tuesday night. Gretchen also took that Monday (and Tuesday) off, but needed to be back at work on Wednesday morning. We therefore ended up reserving flights leaving Sunday night, and returning Monday night, such that if the flight was canceled we still had Tuesday morning to get back to NYC in time.

And then, planning finally finished, we sat back and waited. Cleveland was still our first choice, but if it looked like the weather there wasn’t going to be good enough, we’d cancel our (refundable) reservations and go to Dallas. If it looked like the Cleveland weather would be sufficient, we’d cancel the (also refundable) Dallas reservations and go to Cleveland.

Two weeks out, we began scrutinizing the weather forecasts. The closer to the 8th we got, however, the more concerned we became; a large weather system was forecast to be moving through the Midwest at that time, such that *both* Dallas and Cleveland were looking to be clouded over. With three days to go, we made the call; in consultation with my brother and his family, we decided to cancel both sets of reservations and move east, where the weather was forecast to be better. After a flurry of research, we decided on a working farm near Erie, PA, within driving distance of all of us.

With two days to go, however, we became concerned about even the Erie forecast. My brother and his family decided to risk Erie, but the chance of cloudiness was too high for me. As eclipse watchers all along the Northeast corridor were having the same thoughts, we weren’t hopeful we’d be able to find accommodations in the path of totality further east, but after hours of refreshing pages, Gretchen managed to find an opening at a well-reviewed motel in Potsdam, NY.

By Sunday, though, even the north central New York weather forecast was iffy, so in another reservation coup, Gretchen found a short-term rental, this time near Burlington, VT. We drove there on Sunday, leaving New York at 7 am and arriving at 2 pm. The rental was in a beautiful location, right next to a lake, so we spent the evening walking around, then looking at the stars, many more of which were visible than in NYC.

On Monday morning, we checked the weather, and even in Burlington there was *still* forecast to be 20% cloud cover. After more hurried research, we found a park in Newport, VT that was hosting an eclipse party, so left for there at 9 am. It only took an hour to get there, but traffic was almost at a standstill when we did. After an hour of inching along in traffic, we found that the only reason it hadn’t stopped completely was that police were stationed at the park entrance, telling people it had been full for hours, and that they had to go elsewhere, with no advice on where a good place might be.

With three hours to go until the partial eclipse began, by now just hoping we could find any place at all at which we could stop, we ended up driving north from the park, as that was the direction that led to higher ground, potentially giving a better view. Around half an hour later, we came to a spot on top of a hill where cars were parked off the side of the road, and obvious eclipse-watchers had set up. It turned out the area was private property, but the owner was graciously allowing people to park and eclipse-watch there, as long as they cleaned up after themselves. And after months of planning, five location changes, and with only two hours to go, we couldn’t imagine a better offer.

The location itself would have been wonderful even without the pressure to find any place at all; to the north and west we could see for miles, in the latter case all the way to Canada. The sky itself was almost perfectly clear, and adjacent eclipse-watchers had even brought a solar filter-equipped telescope that we were able to look through.


At 2:15 pm the partial eclipse began, and we spent the next hour looking at the sun through our eclipse glasses, and taking pictures.

Tree crescent shadows!

At 3:27 pm the full eclipse began, and all the time, effort, and stress to get to that point became worth it; the temperature plummeted, the sky darkened, the sounds of nature hushed, and the sun just…went out, only its ghostly corona differentiating it from the blackness of space. For the three minutes of totality we watched, hurriedly took pictures and video, and marveled.

(Aside from a compatible tripod and filter, we hadn’t brought any specialized photographic equipment; we assumed phone camera technology was quite advanced enough for our purposes. We were correct in our assumption, except that our default camera phone app could not correctly autofocus on the sun, so our initial pictures (and, alas, totality video) just showed a blob instead of a partially/fully eclipsed sun. Thankfully our phone filter came with an app that manually allowed us to adjust focus, so we were able to get the above, and many other good shots.)

At 3:30 totality ended, but we stayed put, partially because after all that we wanted to get as much eclipse as possible, and partially to give traffic a chance to die down.

Only the very top left corner of the Sun still eclipsed by the Moon.

The partial eclipse ended at 4:38, and only then did we pack up. After a snack pit stop, we hit the road, at 5 pm.

We had 15 hours until we needed to be anywhere (after we had made our initial reservations, Gretchen had been scheduled for an important work meeting at 8 am Tuesday morning in NYC), so we assumed we’d have plenty of time to get back. That assumption was…incorrect. It turned out that many, *many* people had, like us, come from NYC to northern NH/VT to see the eclipse, and, crucially, they were all trying to get back when we were. Our first stop was to charge the car, at a location 50 miles south of Newport. It took five hours to get there. Traffic crept along just consistently enough that one had to pay attention the entire time; Gretchen took first shift driving, so that’s what she did. For five hours. With no breaks.

When we finally got to the charger at 10:30 pm, we got another (ahem) shock; the longest charger line we’d ever seen. This location had twelve chargers, but there were at least fifty cars waiting to charge. The line of cars stretched down an access road, snaked multiple times through a grocery store parking lot, and ended just before the intersection leading out of the associated shopping center.

As Gretchen had finally let me switch out with her, it was me that crept us along this time, finally reaching a charger at 12:30 am. By 1:30 am we were charged and on our way. The last 259 miles home were up to me; it was my turn to drive, Gretchen had work in the morning so needed to nap instead of drive, and I didn’t have work until that night, so could sleep all day.

And…we got home in time. I assumed traffic would be backed up similar to the first five hours of our drive, but it had mostly died down by then; we really only started to hit traffic as I reached the edge of NYC, as rush hour was just beginning.

We arrived home just after 6 am. Gretchen had time to jump in the shower and make her meeting, to find…it had been canceled. I caught up on sleep and went to work. We found out later that *all* of our previously-considered locations (Dallas, Cleveland, Erie, Potsdam, Burlington) would have been at least partially acceptable; each had at least some time during totality that clouds didn’t obscure the sun. And none were perfect; all locations (even Newport where we ended up) had at least a very high, thin cloud layer during totality.

But. We made it, it was very much worth it, and I’m going to do my best to make sure it’s a more-than-once-in-a-lifetime experience.

I got married!

To the wonderful Gretchen (née) Pedley, on September 8, 2020, in Central Park. :) (Content warning for all the below: kissing. SO MUCH KISSING.) Pictures first:

Video of the ceremony:

Video of the ceremony highlights (music by the wonderful Zoë Keating):

Enjoy!

Tokyo, April 2013

Images from the Tokyo portion of my April 2013 travels, finally posted! Pictures are below; click on any of them to start a full-screen slideshow of all of them. (Note that there are descriptions below each image in the gallery.) Below the gallery are the videos; click a video to start it.

2013-04-21 Akihabara interior
2013-04-22 Stores at night
2013-04-23 Blimp over Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden
2013-04-23 Shinjuku Gyoen National Garden fish
2013-04-23 Daikanransha

San Francisco, Sequoia & Kings Canyon/Yosemite National Parks trip

Below are the pics/videos from my May 2018 Central California trip. Enjoy!

Ask an Engineer:

My second Ask An Engineer column:

Why are the Fenestron (tail rotor) blades unevenly spaced?

The spacing between rotor blades (main or tail) is constant on most helicopters. The fundamental reason for this is that each blade affects the air immediately behind it in its plane of rotation. As a rotor blade moves through the air, it disturbs that air, mainly forcing it downward. The following blade, on moving through this disturbed air, produces less lift than it otherwise would (due to a reduction of what’s called the induced angle of attack, which I’ll discuss more in a future column). Since lift is a force (that pushes upward on the blades), production of lift stresses the blades, and more lift corresponds to higher stresses. The stress each blade feels, therefore, is related to the distance between it and the blade in front of it; the further apart two blades are, the greater lift a following blade produces, and the higher its stress. Any rotor blade that produces lift also produces turbulence in the air behind it, which increases stresses on the blade following it, but this stress increases the closer the blades are. Unfortunately, these effects don’t cancel each other out, which means that the stresses each blade feels vary depending partly on how close it is to the blade in front of it. It therefore makes the most sense to space blades evenly, so the stresses are evenly distributed, as uneven stresses increase wear, increasing maintenance costs.

The SA 340 Gazelle, a light utility helicopter, was the first designed with a Fenestron, and its blades are evenly spaced. (The manufacturer, by the way, was a French company called Sud Aviation, which became part of Aérospatiale, which become part of Eurocopter, which became part of Airbus, which is why so many Airbus helicopters–including our EC135–use Fenestrons instead of conventional tail rotors, and why very few others do.) The noise signature of the Gazelle, though, had a significant high-pitched wail to it, which only worsened when the Fenestron was attempted on later (larger) helicopters.

To learn why, it’s important to understand exactly what sound is. Sound is just waves of pressurized air; high pressure, followed a short time later by low pressure, followed by high, etc. If these waves follow each other in a regular pattern, we hear a constant tone. If the waves are closer together, that’s a higher-pitched tone. If the difference in pressure is high, we perceive that as a louder noise.

In the Gazelle, as each blade moved through the air, it disturbed the air as noted before. One byproduct of the production of lift is that the air above a blade has lower pressure than the air below it (that’s another way to think of lift: higher pressure below a blade, with lower pressure above, pushes the blade upward, as if there were an upward force on the blade itself). Since the air affected by one blade is quickly felt by the blade behind it, this pressure difference, to some extent, is transmitted from a leading blade to a following blade. This oncoming air is split, some going above the blade (where its pressure is reduced), and some going below, where its pressure is increased. In either case, though, air going through the rotor system experiences at least one cycle of pressure rise and drop. Note though, that when the spacing between the blades is the same, the ranges of times between the pressure cycles are approximately the same for each blade. This means that the range of sound frequencies generated by each blade is approximately the same, which in the case of the Gazelle just happened to average out to be uncomfortably high-pitched. And its Fenestron (like all later ones), though small, packed a punch, producing hundreds of pounds of force. This meant that the differences in pressure between the peak and trough of each wave were high, ensuring the wail would be loud.

The solution to this problem was exceedingly clever; the engineers just changed the spacing between the blades, such that some were closer together, and others further apart. That meant that each leading/following blade combination produced a different range of frequencies, such that no single one could dominate to create a wail. And since the blades themselves were small, and since there were so many of them (10 in our EC135, though others have between 8 and 18), the stresses that each created and felt were relatively small, so the difference in stresses between closely-spaced blades and those further apart was small, with the result that the stress-induced maintenance issues detailed earlier were almost nonexistent. This tradeoff of slightly higher maintenance and manufacturing costs for a much quieter noise signature was so favorable that every subsequent Fenestron design incorporated it.

Interestingly enough, uneven blade spacing isn’t only a feature of Fenestrons; the Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, though it has a conventional (unshrouded) tail rotor, unevenly spaces its four blades: two are 45° apart, and two 135°. In its case, designers were willing to pay the increased costs in maintenance and weight of an uneven design in order to lower the helicopter’s total noise signature, as an attack helicopter needs to be as quiet as possible.

Uneven Fenestron blade spacing is an excellent example of pure engineering genius; it solved a vexing problem without significantly increasing weight, or manufacturing or maintenance costs. Helicopters are extremely complex pieces of machinery, and it’s only due to instances of brilliant engineering such as this that they’re able to do all the amazing tasks we ask of them.

Ask an Engineer: helicopter/airplane pilot seat location

At my current base, I offered to write a monthly “Ask an Engineer” column, where base clinicians write in with questions on helicopter design and engineering, and I answer them. This is my first column:

Why do helicopter pilots sit on the right, while airplane pilots sit on the left?

The short answer is because that’s what pilots are already used to, and any new aircraft are designed to fit current pilot preferences. That begs the question, though: how did each tradition get started, and more importantly, why are they different between helicopters and airplanes? There’s no generally accepted single answer in either case, but a combination of the following is most likely:

Modern airplane design conventions first appeared in the 1920’s and 30’s. During that time, most airplanes were powered by large nose-mounted single engines and propellers. Most engines at the time rotated such that their torque made it difficult to turn the airplane to the right on the ground, which meant that pilots preferred to make ground taxi turns to the left. Also, most airplanes during this time had tailwheels, and sat (and taxied) nose-high. Pilots therefore preferred (so airplane manufacturers designed) airplanes in which pilots sat on the left, so they could see best in the direction they were most likely to turn on the ground.

There were aerial navigation reasons for pilots to prefer sitting on the left side, as well. Navigation at that time was mostly done by flying between visual ground checkpoints (bonfires, in the early days!), and it was convention for pilots to fly on the right side of those checkpoints, so as to stay clear of pilots using the same ones going the opposite direction. Most airport traffic patterns utilized left turns, as well. Flying on the left side, then, give the airplane pilot the best field of view to look for other air traffic near checkpoints and airports.

Helicopters became commercially viable later, in the 1940’s, and that’s when their design conventions began to solidify. The first mass-produced helicopter was the Sikorksy R4. It had two seats, and was originally designed to be flown from the left seat, perhaps to match already-established airplane design conventions. The test pilots for the aircraft were its first instructors, and mostly flew it from the left seat, and therefore their trainees mostly all learned to fly it from the right. The test/instructor pilots trained many more pilots than they themselves numbered, so the preference among early helicopter pilots (around which, again, the manufacturers designed) was to sit on the right.

Another potential reason for the start of the tradition was the location of the helicopter’s controls. In order to save weight and reduce complexity, early two-pilot helicopters like the R4 had only one collective control, in between the pilots. Most pilots are right handed, and preferred the control that required more finesse (so the cyclic control) to be manipulated by their dominant hand, which meant that they preferred to sit on the right.

The previous are the most likely reasons why pilots sit where they do now, but there are some interesting modern exceptions to this convention. The most common of these is the Airbus H130 (previously Eurocopter EC130), in which the pilot sits on the left. The reason for this is that, though it’s widely used in helicopter EMS these days, the H130 was originally designed as a tour helicopter. Eurocopter extensively solicited tour operator input during the design process, and one of the things the operators told them was that in helicopters then used for tours (predominantly the AS350 AStar and B206 JetRanger/LongRanger), some front-seat passengers, attempting to enter the aircraft, would grab anything that looked like it might be useful in pulling themselves into the helicopter, including the collective! Grabbing onto it while getting inside raised the collective, causing some inadvertent (near-) takeoffs, and the operators wanted to eliminate this risk. Eurocopter felt the best solution to this problem was to move the pilot seat to the left side of the aircraft, where the collective would be near the pilot door, as opposed to between the pilot and front seat passenger. This design change worked well for tour operators, and pilots transitioning between left- and right-seat helicopters have not found it difficult to do so, so we may see even more left-seat piloted helicopters in the future.

New Year’s Eve 2014: Times Square

I spent this last New Year’s Eve in Times Square. I hadn’t done so before, and wanted to do it at least once just for the experience and spectacle of it all. Notes from the event, as well as pics and video, follow. (Click on an image thumbnail to view a slideshow of all of them; click on a video title to begin watching any of them.)

-They say to get there early, so I did: I arrived in NYC, a few blocks from Times Square, at about 2:30 p.m., and was at my spot by 3:30. Times Square itself is bordered on its north end by 47th Street; I was about 25 feet from that street. I had a pretty good spot, then; I could see (at least part of) the stage, and where the ball would drop. Perhaps, though, if I had shown up twelve hours early, instead of the 9.5 I did, I would have been able to have been in Times Square itself. :) In any case, aside from three 10-15 minute breaks kneeling at my spot (there wasn’t room to sit down), I stood for 8.75 hours, and was on my feet for 11 hours. It was demanding, but worth it.

-The NYE Times Square guides did say to bring something to do while waiting for midnight, so I brought three books; I finished one, and started a second.

-There are no public bathrooms in the area, and if you have to leave to use one elsewhere, or to get something to eat, you probably won’t be able to return to your place. Proper planning is therefore vital; you don’t want to eat so little you faint from hunger or thirst, but also don’t want to eat or drink so much that that you have to leave to use the bathroom. I had an additional issue; my two-can-a-day Cherry Coke Zero habit meant that I had to had some caffeine, or potentially suffer a withdrawal headache during the celebration. I went with, then, for the entire day, three hummus sandwiches, and 24 oz of caffeinated Crystal Light. I apparently planned well; I didn’t have to leave my spot.

-No backpacks are allowed into Times Square during New Year’s Eve, so one has to carry/wear everything they need. The guides also said to dress warmly, in layers if possible, since weather can of course be variable, and there’s no place to get away from rain/snow/cold without losing one’s spot. With the clothing layers, food, drink, and books, the sum total of what I carried/wore was: coat, long-sleeve shirt, short-sleeve shirt, long johns, gym pants, jeans, two pairs wool socks, boots, keys, wallet, phone, glasses bag, paper, pencil, change, glasses, sunglasses (in another bag), earphones, watch, water bottle, two sandwiches (in a bag), three books, earplugs (those were very handy; I had them in the entire time I was in my spot), gloves, and earband. I may have looked like a pack mule, but I was prepared. :)

-Many of the billboards were dynamic, but those that were were only on a 1-2 minute loop. There are some commercials I may never get out of my head. :)

-The performance stage actually faces away from Times Square; there’s only room for about twenty people (all of whom, I assume, were Very Very Important People) between the stage’s apron and the closest building. I wasn’t sure why this was; I assume it was for security’s sake, or because an overenergetic reveler had thrown something at a performer in the past. In any case, from my vantage, the only thing I could see, and then only very occasionally, was the back of a performer’s head. It’s a testament to video editing prowess that I probably would never have noticed this unless I had been there live.

-Only the performances (and some promotions for the event’s sponsors) were broadcast to the audience; we didn’t hear Ryan Seacrest, for instance, at all. Combined with the stage setup, I was struck by how much the event resembled a large-stadium sports game; the experience was planned to appeal much more to those watching at home, rather than those who were there in person.

My takeaway? 8.5 hours is long time to be crammed into a loud, cold, crowded spot, so I probably won’t be doing New Year’s Eve in Times Square for at least a while. I’m happy I did go this time, though; the spectacle was worth it to have experienced at least once.

 

Remarks

This was another piece I wrote around 2003 for consideration to be published in an aviation magazine. My literary genius again went unheralded ( :) ), but it noted the start of a habit I’ve continued with every flight since then. And I’m glad I have; in sometimes just a couple of words per entry, these remarks have logged a life in aviation.

Remarks

I’ve been writing in my logbook more often lately. It hasn’t been because I’ve been flying more; I’ve been adding more to each flight.

I’m a helicopter pilot for a 14 CFR Part 135 (air taxi) operation. Mostly what my company does is provide offshore support: we ferry workers and supplies from coastal bases in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi to oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

Until recently, my logbook entries have been boringly professional: though it doesn’t seem to happen as much in the helicopter (as opposed to the airline/airplane) side of the industry, there’s always the chance that a prospective employer will want to see my logbook. For that reason I had kept my entries as succinct as possible: date, aircraft type and registration, departure and destination, and the various flight times. The Remarks section was mostly left blank, or given the most basic of attention (“Powerline Patrol”, “Photo Flight”, “R44 Checkout”).

But like most pilots, I’ve found myself looking back through my logbook. Though I can remember highlights from flights I’ve made multiple times (“Traffic Watch”) or single flights that were more memorable than usual (“Private Pilot Checkride Passed”), there are literally pages of flights I don’t remember much at all about.

So I’ve been writing in my logbook. Specifically, after each flight (or after a day’s flying when I’m flying offshore and there’s less time) I write down the most interesting thing that happened in the flight/day in the “Remarks” section. Sometimes the most interesting thing is relatively minor, or sometimes it takes a while to come up with something to write. But twenty words or so will let me remember these flights for a lifetime. Looking back, there’s some fascinating stuff:

8/27: Beautiful clouds-3 (big) waterspouts, one forming (water swirl). This day’s entry came from a single cloud, easily the biggest single cloud I’ve ever seen. It started out impressive, became worrisome, and was finally just cool. First, some Gulf-of-Mexico-specific background:

Since we fly over water, there’s no land to slow down the wind, and the (usually warmer) water is a great place for clouds and weather to form. The weather in the Gulf, then, tends to form faster, and it can pack a more powerful punch. (“If you don’t like the weather, wait 15 minutes.” is our standard weather aphorism here.)

Although we definitely give any cloud with lightning or heavy rain a large berth, most other weather we’ll often fly in: even though cloud bases usually start in the 1-3000 ft range, as Part 135 VFR helicopters we only have to have 500 foot ceilings and 3 statute miles visibility to fly offshore. (We usually fly under, as opposed to beside or above clouds, where turbulence is less.) Thunderstorms (in summer) or fog (in winter) can easily ground us, but we still fit in lots of flying time.

Another major difference: clouds over land tend to be part of larger highs, lows, and fronts, and so usually appear only in groups. In the Gulf, though, weather is often much more localized: sometimes there can be really good weather around a few square miles of absolutely rotten thunderheads.

On this particular day, I and my passengers were heading west over the Gulf one morning, and saw a tremendous cumulus cloud. The cloud itself was easily tens of square miles and thousands of feet high, and there really wasn’t much else in the way of clouds around it, which made it seem even larger. This supercloud was over our desired track, and as we got closer, we noticed that we couldn’t see anything but gray underneath it. This isn’t uncommon for huge clouds (even if they’re not making rain or worse), but we definitely couldn’t see past it to open ocean, meaning it was probably as long as it was wide.

It didn’t seem dangerous, and it would have taken quite a bit of time to divert around it, so I flew underneath it. We were in it for a few miles, and as we got closer to its center, the weather went from impressive to worrisome.

Most pilots have heard of virga: they’re the sheets of precipitation (common especially in the Southwest, but also in the Gulf) that extend from the bottoms of clouds, and are thick enough that they can be seen with the naked eye from afar. We usually fly around virga in the Gulf, since the visibility can go too low and the turbulence too high to fly inside them, as well as the fact that the heavy rains of which they’re made can conceivably put out our turbine engines. There were virga (as well as some lightning) directly ahead of us, so I turned right to avoid them, but not before I witnessed the most spectacular first-hand weather show I had ever seen.

A bit about wind on water: a body of water with a steady wind blowing across it will form waves on the water, their direction of motion the same as that of the wind, and the line of the wave crests perpendicular with the wind direction. When the wind gets higher (about 15-20 kts), the wind will blow the tops of the waves over, making intermittent whitecaps along the wave peaks. When the wind gets to 30-40 kts, white streaks will form along the water, parallel to the wind direction.

Another bit about waterspouts: waterspouts are tornadoes over water: if the circular air funnel touches down over land, it’s a tornado, and if over water, it’s a waterspout. Waterspouts are generally weaker than tornadoes (though still nothing to get close to in an aircraft), and like tornadoes can only be seen if they suck up something visible (in the case of tornadoes, dirt, mobile homes, little dog Totos, etc., and for waterspouts, water).

Out of our left windows were two very large, very visible waterspouts. They were dark gray from all the water in them, approximately 800 feet tall, and easily 50 feet wide; ominous fingers of air and water stretching to the ground. They hung there, seemingly motionless, though it didn’t take any imagination to realize that they were in fact rotating and transitioning quite speedily. As soon as I saw them, I turned even more to get out of their way, and that’s when we saw something more fascinating: a waterspout about to form.

In a mature storm, there’s often no specific direction the winds will take, at least as evidenced by their effect on the waves. Near the two waterspouts, though, rotating air above had actually blown the water, with clearly visibly whitecaps and streaks, into a rotating circle hundreds of feet wide. I checked with my passengers, and they confirmed my hunch: I was actually watching a waterspout being born. Had we stayed, the rotating column of air would have contracted and increased in speed, and we would have seen it force water up through its funnel and become visible.

That was the worst of the storm, and we safely exited the other side, but I wouldn’t have traded it for a flight with clear skies that day: From a safe distance, and with a TV nowhere in sight, I got to see not only the biggest single cloud I’ve ever seen, but also the most concentrated weather (as well as what it looked like as it was forming) I’ll probably ever see. That definitely was a logbook keeper.

10/6: Flew through the side of a circular rainbow: I and a passenger were on the way back from offshore, and conditions were perfect for seeing a rainbow: we were flying northeast, the sun was low in the west-southwest (and so behind us), and there was a lot of water in the air, as it was raining intermittently.

About rainbows: rainbows result from the same effect one sees in a prism: when a light is shined into a properly shaped transparent object, the object refracts the light, splitting it up into its component colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. In a rainbow, then, the sun (the light source) shines onto the refracting objects (suspended water droplets in the air), and is reflected back through the droplets to the viewer. A rainbow’s shape comes from the angle the viewer makes with the sun and the raindrops: for a given orientation of sun and viewer, only the water droplets arranged in an arc as seen from the viewer’s orientation will refract visible light. Rainbows can also change in width: larger water droplets will produce rainbows with colors closer together. And although often invisible, rainbows have secondary bows and alternating bands: outside the normally seen portion of the rainbow (the primary bow), a secondary bow, with the same colors (though dimmer) can sometimes be seen. Inside the bow, one can sometimes also see alternating bands of red and green.

Rainbows can also appear to move: the angle between the sun, the water droplets (the refraction point), and the viewer must satisfy a certain relationship to be visible. As the viewer moves forward toward the rainbow, the refraction point (the apparent position of the rainbow) must move forward as well, so a rainbow will appear to move away from the viewer as it is approached. As the viewer continues to move toward the rainbow, the refraction point will eventually move into a parcel of air that has too few water droplets to refract light, and the rainbow will disappear.

As my passenger and I approached an area where it had just rained, a rainbow appeared at our one-o-clock position. As we got closer, it intensified both in brightness and contrast, and we decided to fly through the closest (left) side of it.

We turned toward it, and as we closed the distance the rainbow receded, but not as quickly as we moved toward it. As we approached the refraction point, the rainbow intensified even more, and it lifted off the ground: instead of a semicircle, we saw a complete rainbow circle. (This is only possible to see from the air, as there aren’t any suspended water droplets on the ground to reflect and refract light.) About this time, the secondary bow also appeared; even though its diameter was too wide to make a complete circle, It was easily the brightest and sharpest I’d ever seen. Eventually, we reached the edge of the saturated air, and the rainbow gradually disappeared, but for thirty seconds or so, we flew in a rainbow, surrounded by color and light and the soft patter of rain against the windscreen.

I don’t fly through kaleidoscopes of brilliant circular color every day, so that definitely make the “Remarks” section.

The amazing part about “Remark”ing is that I’ve only been doing it for about four months: these two entries came from flights within six weeks of each other. I could have easily filled many more paragraphs with clouds and sunsets and aircraft and friends met along the way. It’s so easy for pilots to get into a rut: we all look at the same water (or land) and sky and platforms (or towns) every day. For me, though, all it took was a few seconds at the end of each flight, and flying was suddenly a lot less boring, and a lot more like one of the reasons I first jumped into a cockpit six years ago: I can get better memories flying than I can get doing just about anything else.