WMO03823, Cardinham, Bodmin

Posted: September 12, 2012 by tchannon in Analysis, Surfacestation

 

Image

WMO03823, Cardinham, Bodmin

 

50 30 08N 04 40 01W
Altitude 200 metres.

Estimated Class 4, fails Class 3 and above on “Ground covered with natural and low vegetation (<25 cm) representative of the region;”. Available images show the area to the left has had object humped there, at one point disused cars, where the vegetation is taller. The fields might be for stock and hay-making, stability is unclear.

UHI, local, grass airstrips, distance, none.

 

Image

[update, see comments]

This is rough, use graphic magnify as needed, or go look.

Image

Image

Image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approx: windsock and wind tower altitude 200 metres, road 1 at 192m, road 2 at 190m.

Comments
  1. Caz says:

    Not knowing the regs I can’t see how this is class four. Cardinham is just a grass airstrip on the edge of Bodmin moor, other than the A30 there’s nothing there.It’s setting is no different from the rest of the area.

  2. Caz says:

    I am wrong that vegetation is quite tall. This is where the footpath that goes behind the station leaves the road, The vegetation is higher than the camera mast.

    http://goo.gl/maps/FQ2TS

    The camera car went down to the flying club carpark and when you look across the airfield to the station from the access lane it’s obvious that the vegetation beside and behind the station is high and dominant. Sorry about that.

  3. tchannon says:

    Grin.

    Can be worked out, done some of it but putting together into images here is a lot of faffing. Oh bugrit, add to post offline and reupload.

    I recognise the scrub area as gorse and birch/similar, a few primaries. Too tall.

    Camera from the road can almost align the windsock and wind tower. Tree hides the wind tower.
    Altitude in GE says wind tower and met enclosure are at 200m, road is at 192m.

    Now view from further east, separating a clear view of the wind tower no longer covered by the tree. Road is at about 190m.

    Lot of highish stuff thereabouts.

    I expect someone could take a stab at the 3D math and only needs one good object height.

    How much this affects readings is moot but alter it will. Objective is deciding on the practices defacto operated by the Met Office and degree of competence. Contrary to WMO 2010 I and I expect many others are looking at this in the reverse direction, not what the site would be if the people involved are competent, but what is found: the basic site in combination with management.