Met Office Weather Forecast? Hmmmmmmm....

[aviate1138]

We, the Tax Payers, bought the Met Office a shiny new number cruncher not long ago and this is what it does. Or rather doesn't do, it does not forecast! Accurately that is.

Late Saturday 5 Day Forecast....
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture5.jpg

Sunday 5 Day Forecast.......
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture8.jpg

Monday 5 Day Forecast
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture10.jpg

More like actuals, on the first day!

"It don't impress me much!" Shania Twain

[Brgsstm]

Not great that. To tell you the truth I have the best results with the BBC weather :ugh:

[wsmempson]

Funny, because the Met office TAF's used to be pretty good as well, but over the last 3 months they've been garbage; I reckon my 10 year old could have done better recently. The Saurday morning TAF's around SE England were very favourable (for those of us on "Project Propeller" ferry runs) and yet in practice, the vis and cloud-base was rubbish.

On other days, the met men seem to have taken to hedging their bets on an industrial scale, hence the "prob 30" seems more like a real-life "prob 10" - but is simply thrown in there in order to protect their backs.

Come on guys....!:confused:

[Tone]

I often look at the BBC 5 day forecast to whet my appetite for a spot of aviating. Generally it's rubbish and changes from day to day, don't know why I bother. It tends to be fairly accurate on the 24 hour forecast but by then I can do my own by sticking my head out the door.

Once heard that with the Cray computing engine they bought from PC World the Met Office can claim 75% accuracy. However if they simply say that tomorrow will be the same as today they already achieve 70%, aint science wonderful?

[pulse1]

Last night (Sunday) the Met Office were forecasting "very good visibility" for this morning for the Yeovilton/Salisbury area. So, I thought, I'll go flying.

What did we get? 3Km at best. Why do they bother to predict weather more than a few hours ahead? It's a complete waste of time.

The TAF's for Monday were spot on.

Thanks aviate for starting this thread and giving me the oportunity to grumble. I did manage a few circuits.

[David Roberts]

Of course, the BBC's weather is provided by....yes, you have guessed...The Met Office.

(Finance Director 95-99, Met Office)

[Jetscream 32]

thats the trouble - they model the weather now with computers and simulation - against the military that have local knowledge, a good weather radar and mechanical instruments and windows......its about time the met office outsourced the forecasting to farmers and military meto's..... lol :}

[Hamish 123]

According to The Met Office in The Telegraph yesterday, June will be scorchio, while July and August will be washouts. I often cut out such long-term forecast bollox, to remind myself how inaccurate these things usually turn out to be.

As for the short term stuff, a five day forecast on the BBC website in the morning will be different from one in a newpaper on the same day, which will be different from the one on the BBC news in the evening.

One thing is, however, guaranteed. If the forecast for the next 5 days is good, you can sure that if the actual differs from the forecast, it will only be in a worse-than-forecast type way . . . .

[DBisDogOne]

Thanks for confiming that guys, so it isn't just me and my paranoia then....

[airborne_artist]

I didn't "cut out and keep" the Met Office page for Benson this morning, but it had one dark cloud for 1000, and then white clouds for the rest of the day.

The same site's weather radar showed the yellow, pink and red stuff already over Oxfordshire (since about 0500) and still moving North from W Sussex and Hampshire, with no chance of it clearing before about now. It's still drizzling.

Piss-up, meet brewery.

[Chippik]

I use www.metcheck.com to see what the weather is likely to do in the week ahead, and it has been more accurate than the met office website.

['India-Mike]

Agree with Chippik, if a general idea of weather is required for a particular locale, especially 5 days ahead, then metcheck is the site for me. I was put onto it years ago by a yachting-type who swore by it for coastal forecasts.

Having said that the met office have been pretty accurate up here for the past month.

[BEagle]

For a quick overview, I've found this Irish site to be extremely good:

http://www.rte.ie/weather/charts.html

MUCH better charts than the UK Met Office or the useless BBC produce!

A bit like what we used to get on BBC before they dumbed it down with no isobars, loopy-swoopy panning camera shots and gushing girlies (of both sexes :\) presenting it at a level the mononeurones can understand.

[flybymike]

Beagle- Perfect description of BBC forecast.....:D

[IO540]

Right now the weather (look at a MSLP chart) is lots of little bits of muck all over the place, moving about fairly randomly, and this kind of stuff cannot be forecast well.

You could stick 10 forecasters in a room with the same 3D model data and each of them would draw the troughs in different places.

OTOH if you get a big front, then a gap, then another big front, which is the more usual situation here, that is much easier to forecast. Well, they often get the timing a bit wrong but the forecast weather will definitely turn up.

There is also some subtle shorthand involved:

Prob 30 means they think the stuff will likely not happen but it just might and they need to cover their ar*e. I know an airline pilot whose airline SOP is to ignore all "prob 30 tempo" forecasts.

Prob 40 means they think the stuff will come.

[flybymike]

In my view Io's comments indicate why they got rid of prob tens and twentys. As he points out, all they really wanted to say was "It will probably not happen but it might" and "we think it probably will happen but it might not."

[Solar]

One thing that has always puzzled and slightly annoyed me about the BBC and to some extent UTV (Ulster TV) is why they appear to make a point of not talking about the weather in the south of Ireland concentrating only on England, NI, Wales and Scotland. When most of the weather comes across Ireland it seems a bit petty.

[S-Works]

I am off to the Met Office Working Group meeting in an hour and have retained the comments on here to raise at the meeting as a discussion point along with other feedback received over the last couple of months.

I will post the output in due course.

[GANNET FAN]

BOSE-X, discuss these points all you like but I doubt any convincing change will come out of it. What amazes me about the BBC weather men, is the cheerful way they prattle on about todays weather which bears sod all relevance to the night before's forecast. As has been said, it just may be possible for the smiling chappie to say what today's weather will be but I for one will stick my head out of the door!

Flaming June as forecast....yeah right

[S-Works]

Ok as you wish.

But just to clarify you don't actually want to see anything change, you just want something to complain about?

Very British!

[goudie]

I just google all the weather websites until I find a forecast that looks the most promising. Sometimes the variation is quite amazing.
Beagle, I like the Irish one, haven't seen that one before

[GANNET FAN]

Bose, no not really, its just that it becomes rather farcical when the Beeb men don't even appear to recognise the incongruity of sometimes giving two totally different forecasts for the same day and not even saying, sorry prople got that a bit wrong. I realise that its difficult to be 100% accurate all the time, but given the amount of "practice" the met office has had in forecasting and the equipment they use, surely its possible raise the accuracy levels a bit.

Or am I being unfair?

[DFC]

Prob 30 means they think the stuff will likely not happen but it just might and they need to cover their ar*e. I know an airline pilot whose airline SOP is to ignore all "prob 30 tempo" forecasts.



I think that you misunderstand your friend slightly.

Under JAR-OPS 1, Prob (30/40) Tempo can be taken as follows;

Deterioration may be disregarded and improvement should be disregarded including mean wind and gusts.

There is a nice table in the AMC document - AMC-OPS-1.297

However, one common thred running through this and previous discussions regarding forecasts is that many seem to forget that it is the pilot in command who decides if the weather is going to be suitable or not. The information they use to make that decision can come from a number of sources and the Met Office is simply one information provider.

If you check all the available information and decide that the weather is going to be nice and sunny but it turns out to be wet and miserable than you have made the error.

The met forecaster looks at the exact same information that is available to all pilots and gives an educated opinion of what they think will happen.

It is nothing more than that - an opinion - and most importantly - they are not going to be at the pointy end of the aircraft to find out the hard way of their opinion is correct.

That is why it is the PIC's opinion with regard to the weather which is the most important.

Looking out the window can sometimes save hours of pouring over TAFs, METARs and Synoptic Charts etc.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

Bose, no not really, its just that it becomes rather farcical when the Beeb men don't even appear to recognise the incongruity of sometimes giving two totally different forecasts for the same day and not even saying, sorry prople got that a bit wrong. I realise that its difficult to be 100% accurate all the time, but given the amount of "practice" the met office has had in forecasting and the equipment they use, surely its possible raise the accuracy levels a bit.

Or am I being unfair?

No you are not being unfair, but if you sit and complain on forums rather than complaining to the people directly nothing will change.....

[GANNET FAN]

No you are not being unfair, but if you sit and complain on forums rather than complaining to the people directly nothing will change.....

Met Office Working Group
Bose, thought that was what I was just doing!

[IO540]

However, one common thred running through this and previous discussions regarding forecasts is that many seem to forget that it is the pilot in command who decides if the weather is going to be suitable or not. The information they use to make that decision can come from a number of sources and the Met Office is simply one information provider.That is technically true but there is no way a pilot (no matter how trained) is going to be a better weatherman than the professionals.

If he was a better interpreter of the raw data (let's forget for now that the UK MO does not actually make its 3D model - tephigrams - available other than to heavily paying commercial users anyway, so pilots cannot get this data) than the professionals, then he would make a lotmore money than by being a pilot, by setting up a commercial wx forecasting business and selling his forecasts to airlines, supermarkets etc. He could then do everybody a public service by becoming a consultant to the MO and teaching them how to do it better!!!

Whether one likes it or not, the future for pilots is ready made weather data downloaded off the internet - along with notams, filing flight plans, etc. This is what the more clever pilots already do, but it isn't trained in the PPL, and you need a whole collection of websites, most that would be described as 'unofficial', to get the picture.

[Hamish 123]

Regarding admissions of error, the 2230 forecaster on the BBC News last night said something along the lines of "Sorry, we got that forecast a bit wrong" when referring to the fact that the SE England sat under a blanket of low cloud and drizzle the whole day, rather than it all clearing off early afternoon to give us a beautiful end to the day.

(See my comment above re "When forecasts go wrong, it's never in a good way . . . ."!)

[GANNET FAN]

Bose, re Hamish's post, I retract my "complaints"!

[Hamish 123]

To be fair, the only reason I mentioned it was because it was so unusual to hear such a comment!

[tom_ace]

just look at the surface pressure charts and get a picture in your head what is going to happen

[niknak]

If you are going to complain you'll have to back it up with facts validated by a qualified individual.
Get an experienced pilot (CFI etc) or similar to log every time that the forecast is significantly wrong. You can take your evidence directly to the Met Offfice, but it would carry more clout if all the statistics were gathered and correllated by a major lobby group (LAA etc).

[S-Works]

NikNak, Actually.....

The TAFS and METARS are actually performance monitored and if there is a significant deviation then if you file an MOR it will be looked very seriously into including collecting all of the historical data to see if there is a pattern. I raised a couple of examples today and they are going to be looked into. I actually collated a spreadsheet of TAFS and METARS over the 10 days prior to meeting to gather data. You would be suprised at how accurate they actually were.

I have also asked for a change to the 215/415 forms that I think that people will like.

I have to commend the professional way in which the forum is run and the very proactive way in which the Met Office are prepared to interact and work with all of aviation. I am representing the lighter end and they were very interested to listen to and act on feed back from our sector.

[niknak]

Bose X

Yes I know that.

The comment was directed at smaller operators who may not be aware.

[Dysonsphere]

Looking at the rainfall radar is the easiest way of seeing what is really happening as its real time -about 20 mins. If you understood your met exam it will be very reaviling.

[TheOddOne]

I have also asked for a change to the 215/415 forms that I think that people will like.

Bose,

I was lucky enough to visit the Ops room at Exeter about 18 months ago and had a 'go' about the change from portrait to landscape for the 215/415 and how difficult it was at the time to set it up for printing. Well, they did something about the printing (getting you to sit & wait while you download the .pdf) but it really annoys me that it's still in portrait. We've a neat row of clipboards with all the wx & NOTAM info on and the 215 sits there either overflowing on to the boards either side or you have to get a crick in your neck to read it.

I'm glad you got a positive response. I'm of the jaundiced view that they are predominately interested in paying customers (I used to be one such) and airline ops. Hopefully your news is that they've gone back to portrait for the 215!

TheOddOne

[Red Top Comanche]

Bose makes a good point in that people should complain when its wrong.

However the only time I have done so, I failed miserably when having paid for a three day forecast and been told the Sunday of my return would be "high winds, very low cloud, rain, thunderstorms and possible gales" across the whole of the south of England, I demanded my money back when I arrived home (in my car) to find it so calm and peaceful that many balloons were flying in the blue cloudless sky.

The met offices response "the forecast was correct at the time based on the information we had, just because we changed it 2 hours after we spoke to you doesn't entitle you to a refund"

So does complaining work, I remain to be convinced.

[IO540]

I am sure the MO get thousands of calls from angry grannies every day.

What would be useful, perhaps, is an understanding of what kind of weather is fundamentally unforecastable. Then one would avoid relying on the forecasts.

[robin]

The TAFS and METARS are actually performance monitored and if there is a significant deviation then if you file an MOR it will be looked very seriously into including collecting all of the historical data to see if there is a pattern. I raised a couple of examples today and they are going to be looked into.

Bose

I was at the Air Expo today and raised some comments with the team there.

It appears that the performance measures are quite limited - on cloudbase and visibility only.

They have suggested that anyone who has issues with forecasts shoudl raise this with the Met Office, giving chapter and verse as to the TAFs/Airmets etc that were proved wrong.

However, the contract with the CAA is such that there is an effective limit on what is possible. If we want an effective forecast someone needs to pay for it.

My issue is that we are legally required to obtain a forecast prior to flight to comply with the ANO, but I don't think many of us fully understand the limitations of the forecasts provided or the little 'get-outs' the met office uses to explain the failures in accuracy.

Todays little 'chat' with the Met Office reps has convinced me that something needs to happen to improve forecasting for GA to take it beyond the 'horoscope with numbers' we have currently.

An independent analysis of forecasts actually shows that the Met Office could achieve the same performance by stating that tomorrow's weather will be the same as today's weather.

At our club, the business has lost income from people cancelling flights based on Met Office forecasts where timing and extent of poor weather was too pessimistic.

I will now become a wether nerd and will record forecast against TAF/Airmet to do my own analysis.

[usedtofly]

Weather forecasting is a liquid science and as such almost impossible to predict with complete accuracy.

What is it with you lot, do you really expect someone else to make all the decisions for you and absolve you of all responsibility?

Like someone said, look at the pressure charts/fronts etc and work it out for yourself.

As for the prob 30 and prob 40 stuff I have usually found that 30 means 'might not happen' and 40 means 'could well happen'.

A weather forecast is just that..a forecast.....not a guarantee.

Don't be such big girls blouses.....

:E

[tigerbatics]

How do people get to a 'probability' that is less than 51%? That would be a 'possibility' wouldn't it?

[Ringway Flyer]

I use Metcheck, Xc weather and the met office, compare the usually different interpretations of the information available to them, then have a look at the surface pressure charts and the rainfall radar. Then I'm in a position to try and understand what's happening! The mk 1 eyeball is then brought into use and a decision taken accordingly....
:rolleyes:

[bern444]

....that the UK MO does not actually make its 3D model - tephigrams - available other than to heavily paying commercial users anyway....

If you want to get really serious about weather, go here -
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/ . Although the Met Office won't let you and me have raw data without cash, they have agreements with other world service providers such as NOAA to share each other's data. And most other providers around the world do it for free, because they are supported by local taxpayers. They happily upload all the data they have whatever it's source. Wetterzentrale collates a lot of this stuff and you'll find it under "TopKarten". You'll find Met Office synoptics under Topkarten > Fax > Bracknell, and more of their material under Topkarten > UKMO.

B

[IO540]

Bern444, I cannot see where on that site one can find tephigrams or any other UKMO 3D data.

[scooter boy]

I just got back from a fantastic weekend in Sweden.

4.6 hrs EGBJ to ESSL on Friday IFR @ FL110.
The Vatternrundan - 300km on a bike in 10 hrs on Saturday.
5.4 hrs ESSL to EGBJ today IFR @ FL120.

For my forecast I used:

European Aviation Weather Centre - USAF prog charts for a general view
European Significant wx charts - for cloud masses, tops and CB location
Flitestar Wx subscription - plans best route wrt winds aloft
Met Office 414/415 - for a second opinion on the above

All forecasts were pretty accurate but the Met Office was the most pessimistic in both directions from the point of view of having fully fledged fronts/troughs when other sites didn't even show a front. Although there was plenty of convection around it was easy to route around it.

Weather on the ride was good too!

SB

[robin]

All forecasts were pretty accurate but the Met Office was the most pessimistic in both directions from the point of view of having fully fledged fronts/troughs when other sites didn't even show a front.

My very point - and operating within 2 nm of the Met Office it galls me to see that they have so little understanding of the area we operate in.

Looking back over my records of the past winter, a less confident pilot than myself would have lost out on a signifiacnet number of days flying if they had based their decisions on the Met Office forecast

My main concern is that the timings of ' weather events' is woeful and can be up to 12 hours out. In May I was at the airfield waiting for the forecast event (plagues of locusts, cats and dogs etc etc) to go through, but it never arrived and contrary to the forecast - died away before getting anywhere near to our site.

I had a great day, because of my cynicism, but the club had 9 cancellations based on the morning TAF, Airmet, 215 etc etc

Yes, as we gain experience we can start to look at the weather with a semi-professional eye, but early solo or newly-qualified pilots are more susceptible to being put off by pessimistic forecasts. These are where clubs make money, but are being hampered by poor forecasting

[bern444]

I cannot see where on that site one can find tephigrams or any other UKMO 3D data.

Well, being only a tv producer and not a forecaster, I didn't actually know what a tephigram is - but luckily tv producers have to be good researchers as well, and this particular one also happens to have spent some years working with a group of high profile Met Office forecasters. So, is this what you want - http://www.meteo.uni-koeln.de/meteo.php?show=En_We_We - I found the the current British data and much more by following the links under "Radiosonde data"

I'm not sure of the point of obtaining raw met data. The big organisations use the largest computers in the world with a room full of PhDs writing incredibly complex program to run on them and they still can't get it right some of the time. What chance does a PPL have from looking at pressure and temperature data at a few places in the UK?

What you can do is what the forecasters do - look at the output of the various models, which can be found at my earlier offering of Wetterzentrale, and try and make an educated guess at what is actually going to happen. Of course the average PPL has a few hours of education and the pros have a lifetime - but what the hell, it's a prediction.....

B

[IO540]

Bern,

Thank you for that link. In the Univ of Cologne (http://www.meteo.uni-koeln.de/meteo.php?show=En_We_We) you have discovered a second (the first was the University of Wyoming (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html)) source for actual baloon ascents. This goes straight into my collection of really useful weather sites :)

A Tephigram, also known (in a similar form) as a skew-t, is simply a diagram showing how the temperature and dew point vary with altitude.

The most obvious use is to establish cloud bottoms and, for IFR pilots, cloud tops. I will email/PM you some info on this.

The above URLs give actual data but it tends to happen only at 0000Z and 1200Z which while often very useful is often too old. One is after forecast tephigrams.

This is not "raw data" as such - it is data generated from the computer models. Forecasters use tephigrams to work out all kinds of stuff which the plebs get in the form of TAFs, SigWx, and the BBC TV weather forecast...

However I cannot find forecast UKMO tephigrams data on your site. The only forecast tephigrams I know of are found on various sites which serve the U.S. GFS weather model e.g. NOAA (http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/cmet.html).

[gpn01]

Not sure of the data's source (i.e. whether it's based on UKMO or not) but you'll find forecast ascents (tephis) at http://weather.scorer.homelinux.org/RASPviewer.html as well as a host of other stuff that some of us use.

For those pilots who demand more accurate forecasts can I suggest that you move to somewhere which has predictable weather that isn't influenced by, among other things:

The fact that were an island with much localised weather
We're off the coast of a large land mass
We're on the edge of a sizeable mass of ocean
There's the potential for airmasses to come from the polar, tropical and maritime regions
That the UK is several hundred miles long and you expect a forecast to be accurate for a 20Nm area when weather fronts extend several thousand miles

So, if you want accurate forecasts, move to Nevada (it'll be hot and dry).

If you'd like reliable, consistently accurate weather forecasts in the UK then you're out of luck. The only accurate forecast is an aftercast and, even then, some of the forecasters will disagree about why the weather did what it did!

Forecasters are great at pulling together all the pieces of data they have about what's happening now and what's happened in the past and providing an assessment of what 'could' happen. Sometimes they can be 100% confident of their prediction (Winter in the UK tends to be cold for example and if there's a satpic show a solid layer of CuNims rolling in on a front then it's pretty much like that it's going to be wet). Most of the time though it's a best guess. If you think that you ca do it better then go ahead. If you develop a model that works better than the existing ones then you'll be very rich. It'll probably be good for choosing stock market movements too!

Final point - treat forecasts as a general guide (e.g. wet, low cloud and a NW'ly wind) and be mindful that, like any other FORECAST, it may OR MAY NOT be right. Use your own judgement!

[Captain Jock]

As usual I have arrived late on this thread and my comments may not be relevant or perhaps they belong elsewhere.

I have just been reading the "Changes to Civilian TAF issue/validity times" on the Met Office web site. The title might more aptly have read "Downgrading of Service". I operate in the Central Scotland area and from the 5th November 9 hour TAFS will no longer be available for Edinburgh, Glasgow or Prestwick but if I was flying at Carlisle,Dundee or Wick I could still get a 9 hour TAF. Maybe someone can explain the logic of that because it escapes me.

At present I can get forecasts updated every 3 hours; in a few months it will be every 6 hours and these will no doubt be liberally sprinkled with PROB 30's and PROB 40's. Given that the major cause of light aircraft accidents is weather this does not seem to be a step in the right direction.

I understand the official reason for this is to comply with ICAO rules but there are many occasions when a difference is filed and maybe this should be one of them. Remember the golden rule "If it aint broke don't fix it".

Making the right decision is hard enough this will not make it any easier.

[Jim59]

As a glider pilot (as well as a PPL) I'm interested in getting forecasts not only accurate enough to decide if it is safe to fly, but also good enough to enable me to plan cross country flights of up to 200 nm without ending up in a field.

A good starting point is WeatherJack's site
http://s214580749.websitehome.co.uk/
It has links to pretty well all the weather sites that you could ever want. If you select Weather Page, from the home page, then RASP/blipmaps and scroll down you will find all the soundings (Tephigrams) that you are ever likely to need. WeatherJack also provides a tutorial so that you can understand them without needing a PHD in met.

I also subscribe to a German forecaster at
http://www.topmeteo.eu/go/home
This gives me today plus the next three days with a resolution of hourly, every two hours or every three hours depending on budget. They provide different data for aircraft, gliding, paragliding and ballooning. You can chose the geographic area(s) that interest you. If you don't subscribe then you can buy individual charts.

The "Charts GFS (American)" link from WeatherJack is interesting - it gives forecasts much further ahead than most others.

[bern444]

However I cannot find forecast UKMO tephigrams data on your site. The only forecast tephigrams I know of are found on various sites which serve the U.S. GFS weather model e.g. NOAA (http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/cmet.html).

Yes - find forecast tephigrams here - http://expert.weatheronline.co.uk/daten/profi/en/modtemps/modtemps.html
based on GFS and link provided courtesy of my forecaster friend. Given that I've listened to numerous professional discussions about whether the GFS or UKMO model is correct on a day when they disagree, I would have thought that GFS was as good as anything. And of course my friend says it is in any case better to rely on the professionals - though he would say that. Still, "roomfuls of PhDs and the fastest computers in the world" as I said before.

B

[Captain Smithy]

www.xcweather.co.uk (http://www.xcweather.co.uk) is an excellent website I use all the time.

Also try www.wunderground.com (http://www.wunderground.com) for free, up-to-date METARs and TAFs for around the world.

Smithy

[Hamish 123]

At the start of this week, the BBC (ie the Met Office, and indeed the Met Office's website) was forecasting a very pleasant weekend ahead.

Two days later, the forecast is now for rain, rain, and a bit more rain. Then it's going to rain.

How is it possible to get a diametrically different forecast within two days? No, don't answer that - it's a rhetorical question. Looks like I won't be flying this weekend after all.

My point is that why does anyone bother forecasting more than 24 hours ahead, when predictions move to such extremes in such a short space of time?

Despite billions of bits of empirical data, and massive super computers, a bit of seaweed and grannie's arthritis appear to be about as accurate beyond a day.

[Captain Smithy]

Here is the Edinburgh TAF (not changed much since early this morning):

TAF EGPH 181150Z 181322 21010KT 9999 FEW020 SCT045 PROB30 TEMPO 1318 8000 SHRA SCT015CB=

And the current METAR (also not changed much):

METAR EGPH 181350Z 26008KT 9999 FEW040 16/09 Q1000

Utter mince. No rain all day, no CBs all day, wind out by quite a bit. Crap. This happens on a regular basis. I sometimes wonder if the MO chucks in PROBs and CBs in TAFs off-the-cuff as an arse-coverer.

[IO540]

OK Bern, forecast tephigrams from GFS are two a penny.

My original Q was forecast tephigrams from UKMO data.

Whether this matters I don't know. Some say the UKMO model is better for the UK than GFS.

[XL319]

The BBC and met office quite often get the forecast totally wrong. Today for example they said we (where i live) would have rain all day, but none around except down south.

Did no one tell them that warm fronts move at a snails pace.

[bern444]

Some say the UKMO model is better for the UK than GFS.

Yes, there are people who can have serious arguments about that, but I think it's a bit like arguing that "my Ford is better than your Vauxhall" - they're both tin boxes that go along the road. I've sat with high powered forecasters from one organisation about to give a forecast based on their model, whist being absolutely convinced that the other is correct. And on a different day being certain that their was right and the other was wrong. Mostly they more or less agree.

The trouble with predicting weather, apart from it being chaotic, is that it's very big, and a hundred miles north or south really isn't a big deal - unless it's you that gets the unexpected. Nevertheless, there are times when it's possible to be really accurate, and times when it isn't. In the UK, as someone pointed out earlier, we live in a particularly difficult place to forecast, and no amount of whinging can change that.

B

[robin]

That is a good example that needs to be reported to the Met Office and the CAA

As I understand it, the CAA gets a report from the Met Office on the performance against performance targets - on cloud and visibility - and has consistently exceeded the targets.

When I queried the usefulness of this, I was told that the CAA only paid a small amount to support weather forecasting, and the Met Office tailored their services to match the funding.

In words of one syllable - if you want more, then you have to pay more.

However, if we, as aviators, wish to raise issues with a forecast, we should let them know directly (and probably copy the CAA in as well). That way we might finally get some better response

[Hamish 123]

Bern,

While accepting that whinging about rubbish forecasts isn't going to change anything, is it not somewhat surprising that despite the the massively improved tools available to the Met Office, and accepting the UK's particular climatological vagaries, forecasts for a few days hence appear not to be a great deal more accurate than they were twenty years ago?

Anything more than next 24 hours should have a large disclaimer stating "This forecast might be be a load of bollox - or it might not be . . . . "

[lurkio]

The minimum ICAO standards for forecasts are in the AIP under GEN 3-5-14 (10 Jul 03). If you want to be bothered gathering the info and comparing it be my guest. It seems that we read the forecasts at work and then .... go. Yeah I know, that's what they pay me for but some days you wonder what planet the forecasters are on. On occasions I've seen just about every variation in a forecast and have been wondering what the code for a plague of locusts was as that was all that seemed to be missing.
Still if the weather out of the window is looking good, go grab an aircraft and enjoy your flying.

[IO540]

I think a big part of the problem is that while computer power has improved dramatically, the number of ground and sea-based observation platforms has been equally dramatically decreased, so the number of points that get fed into the 3D model is very small.

The radio sondes go up only 0000Z and 1200Z, and only at a few dozen places in all of Europe. These provide by far the best data.

The rest comes from satellite observations etc.

One thing which many pilots would find helpful would be to watch the MSLP charts daily. Most look at the "weather" only before they plan to fly, but looking at it daily soon teaches you to take one look at an MSLP chart and get a pretty good feel for what is coming.

[bookworm]

TAF EGPH 181150Z 181322 21010KT 9999 FEW020 SCT045 PROB30 TEMPO 1318 8000 SHRA SCT015CB=

And the current METAR (also not changed much):

METAR EGPH 181350Z 26008KT 9999 FEW040 16/09 Q1000

Utter mince. No rain all day, no CBs all day, wind out by quite a bit.

Uhuh?

METAR EGPH 181150Z 22014KT 180V250 9999 VCSH FEW022 SCT035 16/07 Q1001=
METAR EGPH 181220Z 27010KT 9999 -SHRA FEW007 SCT030 14/09 Q1001=
METAR EGPH 181250Z 22010KT 190V260 9999 FEW018 16/09 Q1001=
METAR EGPH 181320Z 26008KT 9999 SCT040 15/09 Q1000=
...

Would you perhaps like to change your tune now and claim that the Met Office is failing you because it predicted a 70% probability that it would not rain?

[bern444]

While accepting that whinging about rubbish forecasts isn't going to change anything, is it not somewhat surprising that despite the the massively improved tools available to the Met Office, and accepting the UK's particular climatological vagaries, forecasts for a few days hence appear not to be a great deal more accurate than they were twenty years ago?


I suppose the answer to that is a question. How would you do it better? When you've solved the problem, let me know quietly because I think I can use the same program to predict the stock market and make a fortune.

I do know from many years working alongside forecasters that the forecasts are better now than they were twenty years ago. The fact that they can still be very wrong means that it is just very very difficult to predict weather. We can't do cold fusion or fly to Alpha Centauri either - it's on the limits of our current capabiliies here in the early days of the twenty-first century. And that's that.

B

[Hamish 123]

Ah yes, the old "Unless you can do better, then don't dare comment" argument . . . .

However, doesn't change the fact that most mid/long term forecasts are useless. And that's that.

[wsmempson]

Well, yesterdays forecast for today was pretty gothic - everything bar a plague of frogs - and yet today has, for most of SE England, been a pretty good day for VFR flying, with a 2,500-3,000 ft cloud-base, modest winds, great vis.

WTF...?:uhoh:

The weekend is always guaranteed to be horribly, though.:}

[Captain Smithy]

Thanks for that bookworm, interesting reading, however living in Edinburgh I can tell you it did not rain all day on the 18th. Perhaps there were some showers out to the West of the airport which I did not see.

However I'm not going to eat my words. No, there was no rain 13-18Z, no CBs, good vis all day, and the wind was Westerly rather than Southerly. No, rather I am sticking to my observation that the TAF for the 18th was, as is often, a load of keech. Anyway, that's all, I didn't come to argue with anyone.

[gasman123]

I have a lot of respect for what is evidently a difficult science, and, human nature being what it is, we only remember when they get it wrong.

But.....looking out the window in Cheltenham - it is dry. The BBC tell me it is raining, and has been raining all morning. The Glos TAF claims a 30% chance of RADZ till 1900 (sounds reasonable). This inconsistency between the BBC & the met office occurs frequently, yet the Met Office apparently supply them with the info! Frequently happens, who to believe? Usually go by the Met office, but have been stung.

The other one that amuses me (and happens a lot) is when you look at the overall forecast for the day on the BBC & there is a rain cloud, but on the 24 hour forecast it is sunny every hour. Maybe it only rains on the half hour.....

[Captain Smithy]

Another wee example here.

Current EDI TAF:

TAF EGPH 211448Z 211601 07012KT 9999 -RA SCT018 BKN035
TEMPO 1921 8000 RA BKN014
BECMG 1921 8000 BKN012
TEMPO 2101 4000 RA BKN007 PROB30
TEMPO 2301 3000 RADZ +RA BKN004=

And current METAR:

METAR EGPH 211620Z 13012G23KT 9999 -DZ FEW030 13/07 Q1013

Compare wind direction and note gust - unforecasted.

Had an interesting one earlier, TAF originally showed rain at 1600Z, then the rain forecast was removed altogether from the TAF... and then it appeared again. All while there has been a sizeable band of rain observed on the (Met Office) weather radar moving steadily towards us, which as I speak seems to be very near Edinburgh now (vis. seems to have worsened & small showers of rain now breaking out).

EDIT: While I was posting this the TAFs/METARs were updated. Here's the latest EDI METAR & TAF... in comparison with earlier seems much more sensible. Well done guys.

METAR EGPH 211650Z 13011KT 9999 -DZ FEW025 BKN045 12/07 Q1013

TAF EGPH 211551Z 220024 08014KT 8000 -RA BKN014
TEMPO 0008 4000 RA BKN007 PROB30
TEMPO 0008 RADZ +RA BKN004
BECMG 0709 18012KT 9999 NSW SCT020
BECMG 1416 24012KT
BECMG 2023 32013KT PROB40
TEMPO 2224 8000 RA=

Shomeone at the Met Offish hash been at the sherry methinksh...

Shmithy (hic) :\

[bookworm]

So once again you're taking a single METAR and comparing it with a 9-hour TAF. Here's the full sequence.

METAR EGPH 211620Z 13012G23KT 9999 -DZ FEW030 13/07 Q1013=
METAR EGPH 211650Z 13011KT 9999 -DZ FEW025 BKN045 12/07 Q1013=
METAR EGPH 211720Z 11009KT 9999 -RA FEW025 BKN045 11/08 Q1012=
METAR EGPH 211750Z 10009KT 9999 -RA OVC035 11/08 Q1011=
METAR EGPH 211820Z 09011KT 9999 -RA FEW018 SCT026 BKN035 10/08 Q1011=
METAR EGPH 211850Z 09011KT 9999 -RA FEW016 BKN030 09/07 Q1010=
METAR EGPH 211920Z 08011KT 9999 -RA FEW009 SCT020 BKN026 09/07 Q1010=
METAR EGPH 211950Z 08011KT 9999 -RA FEW009 SCT012 BKN018 09/08 Q1009=
METAR EGPH 212020Z 07013KT 6000 -RA FEW008 SCT010 BKN016 09/08 Q1009=
METAR EGPH 212050Z 08014KT 9999 -RA FEW006 SCT009 OVC014 09/08 Q1008=

You complain about the lack of mention of an 11 knot gust. Bear in mind that gusts of up to 10 knots are neither recorded nor forecast. The mean wind speed is spot on. The direction is backing to the forecast direction for the period of the forecast, and unless you want TAFs to get even longer than they are, you'll have to accept some variation in wind direction around the mean.

Weather does vary, and it sometimes varies in an unpredictable way. The appearance or absence of showers at a particular spot is a probabilistic phenomenon, like the appearance or absence of bubbles in a particular place in a boiling pan.

Met Office forecasters do sometimes get it wrong. Most of the time, they get it right, or at least as right as can be expected for any prediction of local meterorological conditions. Picking out single METARs is not a fair way to assess overall forecast performance.

[robin]

Lets just be clear here

Some people (and I'm one) are weather nerds. We look up weather forecasts from a host of sources, watch the way that weather moves and changes and plan our flying on the basis of forecasts, local knowledge etc etc

Most pilots, especially low-time under-confident types, have little interest in weather and will cancel a local flight if a cloud appears in a clear-blue sky.

Some of us have gone to CAA safety evenings and have had the sh*t scared out of us by stories of CFIT.

Now it is all very well experts telling us that gusts of less than 10kts aren't recorded, or some of the dark secrets of TAFs and their validities.

The reality is that most pilots look at last night's or this morning's BBC forecast (supplied dreckly from the Met Office) and could not interpret a TAF, METAR, Form 215 etc etc if their lives depended on it - and it does!

Personally I despair at the lack of knowledge of experienced pilots in my group when it comes to the nuances of weather interpretation.

However, the general perception - and that is what counts - is that the forecasts have become less reliable in recent years, and we have sufficient evidence to justify that view.

Given that my friends fly from a small airfield 2 miles from the Met Office building, it is a regular complaint when reading the METARS - 'why don't they open a bl**dy window???'

[bookworm]

However, the general perception - and that is what counts - is that the forecasts have become less reliable in recent years, and we have sufficient evidence to justify that view.

The "general perception" based on anecdotal evidence of the sort that you've presented, is also that policemen are getting younger, that typefaces are getting smaller, and that the good old days were always better than now. If the "general perception" is what counts, then the Met Office might as well give up.

If you care about reality (in the way that a scientist would), you may have to read some of those boring reports that you've already mentioned that show that "performance against performance targets - on cloud and visibility - and has consistently exceeded the targets".

The reality is that most pilots look at last night's or this morning's BBC forecast (supplied dreckly from the Met Office) and could not interpret a TAF, METAR, Form 215 etc etc if their lives depended on it - and it does!

What you seem to be asking for is a one word summary of what the weather will be like, good or bad. Unfortunately, in aviation, the interaction of weather with flying is complicated, and flights for different purposes need different sorts of prediction. That's why we have METARs and TAF, that refer to wind direction, wind speed, visibility, cloud etc. If you want to improve that "reality", why not concentrate on pilot education since that what seems to be failing, and spend less time bashing the Met Office, which is not.

[usedtofly]

Like I said!

What is it with you lot, do you really expect someone else to make all the decisions for you and absolve you of all responsibility?:E

[IO540]

As an IFR pilot, I would like to see data on cloud tops.

It is 100% certain this data exists, from satellite imagery, but I have never found anything which is reasonably real time (less than 1hr old, say) and with usable resolution.

IR images will do the job because they show temperatures of cloud tops, from which one can work the cloud top altitude backwards, with a useful accuracy.

Presumably commercial considerations are holding it back.

I have consistently found the forecasts on the SigWx form to be close to hopeless. 5000ft out, easily, which is OK if the tops are forecast at FL120 because I can go to FL200. Meteoblue (working mostly off GFS) is no better and they don't run their model very often anyway.

[Captain Smithy]

usedtofly said... "What is it with you lot, do you really expect someone else to make all the decisions for you and absolve you of all responsibility?"

No, but an accurate, reliable TAF helps make things a hell of a lot easier when making a decision on the weather.

As pilots I'm sure we all have a half-decent understanding of weather - we have to - and of the practical limitations of forecasting. We all understand that weather is not just a fixed constant - it is indeed variable, everyone knows that. It's all very well bearing that in mind but it's not much cop when the wind is forecast to be Southerly but instead it turns out to be Westerly - or if forecast weather arrives earlier/later than forecast or doesn't arrive at all.

I was discussing yesterday's TAF shambles with my CFI and a couple of other FIs, and we all agreed that recently the TAFs have been pretty unreliable. My CFI made the point about yesterday's TAF showing no rain at all; what if someone decided to take a trip to Edinburgh based on that TAF and got caught out by the nasty weather that appeared instead? Unfortunately I don't have the TAF at hand but it showed few/scattered clouds at about 3000 feet or thereabouts and light winds - no mention of rain. Then the TAF was changed to show the rain... fair enough but why was it taken off the TAF in the first place, bearing in mind that the previous TAF had rain to start with?

I don't think we're "bashing" the Met Office as such on this thread, we all appreciate and respect the MO's work, however as users of the MO's data all we're asking for is a little more accuracy, that's all.

IO540: I can't remember off-hand but I think there might be cloud-top data available in the subscription service on the Met Office Aviation website.

Smithy

[bookworm]

As an IFR pilot, I would like to see data on cloud tops.

There is a eumetsat product that shows sat-derived tops, I think.

[S-Works]

As an IFR pilot, I would like to see data on cloud tops.

It is 100% certain this data exists, from satellite imagery, but I have never found anything which is reasonably real time (less than 1hr old, say) and with usable resolution.

I have requested that the cloud tops be put back onto the 215/415 to give more granular understanding. But the cloud tops are available on the Europe SigWx charts as well juts on a wider scale.

I am expecting a response on my request prior to the next Met Office WG meeting and if as is believed it is simple enough to change we should see the data appearing again soon.

[bookworm]

My CFI made the point about yesterday's TAF showing no rain at all; what if someone decided to take a trip to Edinburgh based on that TAF and got caught out by the nasty weather that appeared instead? Unfortunately I don't have the TAF at hand but it showed few/scattered clouds at about 3000 feet or thereabouts and light winds - no mention of rain. Then the TAF was changed to show the rain... fair enough but why was it taken off the TAF in the first place, bearing in mind that the previous TAF had rain to start with?

OK here's the full sequence of short TAFs yesterday:

TAF EGPH 210544Z 210716 09006KT 9999 FEW040 TEMPO 1516 8000 -RA BKN012=
TAF EGPH 210906Z 211019 VRB03KT 9999 FEW040 BECMG 1114 07011KT=
TAF EGPH 211204Z 211322 07009KT 9999 FEW040 BECMG 1114 07011KT BECMG 1921 8000 -RA BKN014 TEMPO 2122 4000 RA BKN007=
TAF EGPH 211448Z 211601 07012KT 9999 -RA SCT018 BKN035 TEMPO 1921 8000 RA BKN014 BECMG 1921 8000 BKN012 TEMPO 2101 4000 RA BKN007 PROB30 TEMPO 2301 3000 RADZ +RA BKN004=
TAF EGPH 211750Z 211904 11012KT 9999 -RA SCT018 BKN035 TEMPO 1921 8000 RA BKN014 BECMG 1921 8000 BKN012 TEMPO 2104 4000 RA BKN007 PROB30 TEMPO 2304 3000 RADZ +RA=

Here are the METARs from about mid-day (the morning was a boringly accurate prediction):

METAR EGPH 211250Z 06011KT 9999 FEW025 13/09 Q1015=
METAR EGPH 211320Z 06011KT 9999 FEW025 SCT045 13/09 Q1015=
METAR EGPH 211350Z 06012KT 9999 -DZ FEW025 SCT040 12/09 Q1014=
METAR EGPH 211420Z 05010KT 9999 FEW025 SCT040 13/10 Q1014=
METAR EGPH 211450Z 13012KT 9999 FEW025 SCT040 15/08 Q1014=
METAR EGPH 211520Z 15013KT 9999 FEW025 SCT040 15/06 Q1013=
METAR EGPH 211550Z 13012KT 9999 FEW025 14/06 Q1013=
METAR EGPH 211620Z 13012G23KT 9999 -DZ FEW030 13/07 Q1013=
METAR EGPH 211650Z 13011KT 9999 -DZ FEW025 BKN045 12/07 Q1013=
METAR EGPH 211720Z 11009KT 9999 -RA FEW025 BKN045 11/08 Q1012=
METAR EGPH 211750Z 10009KT 9999 -RA OVC035 11/08 Q1011=
METAR EGPH 211820Z 09011KT 9999 -RA FEW018 SCT026 BKN035 10/08 Q1011=
METAR EGPH 211850Z 09011KT 9999 -RA FEW016 BKN030 09/07 Q1010=
METAR EGPH 211920Z 08011KT 9999 -RA FEW009 SCT020 BKN026 09/07 Q1010=
METAR EGPH 211950Z 08011KT 9999 -RA FEW009 SCT012 BKN018 09/08 Q1009=
METAR EGPH 212050Z 08014KT 9999 -RA FEW006 SCT009 OVC014 09/08 Q1008=
METAR EGPH 212020Z 07013KT 6000 -RA FEW008 SCT010 BKN016 09/08 Q1009=
METAR EGPH 212150Z 07014KT 8000 RA FEW006 SCT007 BKN009 09/08 Q1007=
METAR EGPH 212120Z 07013KT 9000 -RA FEW005 SCT009 BKN012 09/08 Q1007=
METAR EGPH 212220Z 07015KT 9999 -RA FEW005 BKN007 10/09 Q1006 RERA=
METAR EGPH 212250Z 08014KT 9999 RA SCT005 BKN007 10/09 Q1005=
METAR EGPH 212320Z 07014KT 7000 RA FEW005 SCT006 10/09 Q1005=
METAR EGPH 212350Z 07012KT 9000 RA FEW003 SCT004 BKN007 10/10 Q1004=

You complaint seems to be that the 1019 TAF didn't predict rain. It took until 1204Z for the Met Office to issue a TAF with a deterioration from 1900, and only at 1448 did they actually predict light rain from 1600. The light rain actually started around 1600.

But just take a look at the operationally important variables. The ceiling didn't fall below 3000 ft until after 1900. The visibility remained at least 10 km until after 1900. In RAF terminology, Edinburgh was actually Blue (the "best" colour state) for the entire period of the 1019 TAF.

Unless your aircraft is made of icing sugar that dissolves in light rain, would you really have been "caught out"?

[Captain Smithy]

In a light-single not equipped with any anti-icing equipment, and as a non-instrument-rated pilot (as yet), then yes, I would've been caught out.

There again I had been watching the Wx Radar all day and observed the large band of rain moving our way... even though the TAF suggested otherwise, which explained my (and others') disbelief at the TAF.

I still question why the initial TAF's TEMPO 1516 8000 -RA BKN012 was then bemusingly dropped altogether, before mysteriously reappearing later on as BECMG 1921 8000 -RA BKN014 TEMPO 2122 4000 RA BKN007 - fairly accurate, must give credit where it's due - but why was the rain/low-cloud/poor vis forecast on the TAF dropped in the first place? Hmm.

Also, I fail to see how Military weather terminology - Blue, White, Magenta, Mauve, Gold-with-sparkly-bits or whatever else - has to do with a civilian pilot flying at a civil aerodrome in whatever weather conditions - i.e. me. I also fail to see the relevance of this comment - "Unless your aircraft is made of icing sugar that dissolves in light rain, would you really have been "caught out"?". I assume these throwaway remarks were a crude attempt at smart-arsery, in order to make me feel small and uninformed in order for you to claim some sort of high-ground? Well congratulations you've succeeded there.

I was always taught to avoid precipitation where possible when flying in a light aircraft - icing, gusts etc. But there again not being a weather guru what do I know, eh. What place do I have to question the great weather gurus.

Anyway, that's all, like I said previously I do not want to argue with anyone, I am only here to share my experiences.

bose-x if you could keep us informed on your dialogue with the Met Office and, when it comes, the outcome of the next meeting that would be great.

Smithy.

[IO540]

The SigWx does show tops (FL100+) but they are usually way off.

That's why a "cloud tops metar" would be great.

One can get it (as tephigrams) from two American university websites that carry worldwide baloon ascent data but this happens only at 0000Z & 1200Z - of some use for a daytime flight but limited to very stable air masses.

Bookworm - do you have a URL?

[bookworm]

Here under CTH (http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Access_to_Data/Meteosat_Meteorological_Products/Product_List/index.htm?l=en). CLA also interesting. I think you have to pay for them though.

Captain Smithy, I don't wish to make you feel "small and uninformed", I'd just like you to get your facts straight before you start mouthing off with words like "Utter mince" to describe the work product of those who are trying very hard to give you the oppotunity to stay safe. FWIW, you will not experience airframe icing in precipitation below cloud in the conditions reported on 21 June.

[Fuji Abound]

Also, I fail to see how Military weather terminology - Blue, White, Magenta, Mauve, Gold-with-sparkly-bits or whatever else - has to do with a civilian pilot flying at a civil aerodrome in whatever weather conditions - i.e. me. I also fail to see the relevance of this comment - "Unless your aircraft is made of icing sugar that dissolves in light rain, would you really have been "caught out"?". I assume these throwaway remarks were a crude attempt at smart-arsery, in order to make me feel small and uninformed in order for you to claim some sort of high-ground? Well congratulations you've succeeded there.

I can understand why you have taken offence, however it is sometimes difficult to see a situation from the other point of view, lest we forget the weather conditions that would have scared the hell out of us when we started flying.

Rain doesnt dissolve aircraft but it can dissolve a pilots confidence.

Bookworm is not known on these forums for anything other than well informed posts.

[red cuillen]

Capt Smith - please re-read the info bookworm gave you on the taf/metar sequence.

The tempo 1516 8000 –RA BKN012 was on a taf issued at 0544z, the 1019 was issued at 0906z, I assume the deterioration from 1500Z was dropped because they no longer expected it to happen at that time - which it didn’t! Yes there was light rain from 1650z, but I suggest you gen up on what needs to happen for a tempo or becmg to be added to a taf, 9999 –DZ FEW025 doesn’t meet any change that I’m aware of. Maybe they knew that the conditions under the rain band you could see on the radar weren't too bad to start with - give them some credit.




Also the 215 does give cloud top information, but only up to FL100. The airmet scripts do go higher, but I imagine space constraints limit how much information gets put in on higher topped cloud. The Sig Wx chart is just that, gives info on sig wx - ie. icing and turb levels, NOT cloud tops.



Regards

[S-Works]

Actually the SigWx does give cloud tops....... It was the argument used to counter my request by the met office at the meeting. As they are the people that produce the charts please excuse me if I take their word over yours.

However when I pointed out the detail was not granular enough in detail for those at the lighter end of aviation without de-ice and pressurisation they agreed to listen to what I had to say and agree to look into the changes.

[IO540]

For about the 3rd time - the SigWx DOES give cloud tops, but they are so far off so as to be hard to rely on.

The information is OK if you have a 30k ft ceiling so the error doesn't matter.

[bookworm]

Actually the SigWx does give cloud tops...

For the last 9 months or so, in a rather diminished way. The medium-level SigWx used to show both layer cloud (where it presented an icing or turbulence hazard) and CB activity. Now CB trumps layer cloud and that is all that's shown where both are present.

So if you look at 1200 today, we have an area shown with icing and turb to 160 off the west coast of Norway, and an adjoining area with ISOL CB to 250 over Scandinavia. There may also be layer cloud with icing and turb to any level up to 250 in that area (and there probably is up to 160), but all that is included is the ISOL CB because it's the "greater hazard". So we can't tell the differnence between having to cruise in clear air and having to cruise in mod icing and turb. I've expressed my displeasure to the Met Office, but the decision was ICAO's.

[IO540]

That's right - basically the SigWx is useless for establishing the vertical extent of any organised (stratus) cloud, when there is embedded TCU/CB stuff inside it.

This is OK for jet traffic, which is presumably all that interests the decisionmakers.

I would hope that Meteoblue is better because that would tend to show stratus at the expense of not showing cloud with lots of vertical development.

Fortunately, in the "metar" sense, there is www.meteox.com (http://www.meteox.com) radar and also sferics
http://www.blitzortung.de/
though that site seems to have just died.

[Fuji Abound]

http://195.214.200.121/index.aspx?id=14

A good or even better alternative.

Shame if it has died though.

[IO540]

Fantastic sferics site Fuji, thank you!

The Blitz... site is gone; even their lview.exe viewer (have one on my desktop) is not receiving any data right now.

[S-Works]

For about the 3rd time - the SigWx DOES give cloud tops, but they are so far off so as to be hard to rely on.

The information is OK if you have a 30k ft ceiling so the error doesn't matter.

Just because every weather service is not provided for the personal attention of someone whizzing around Europe low airways in a TB20 does not make the data provided inaccurate.

I would agree that the data is skewed towards the big paying customers of the service and not the flimsy end of GA. But the MO have started to listen and now that GA has a voice on the working group in the form of me I am fully prepared to take forward any reasonably placed requests in an effort to improve things for our end of aviation.

[IO540]

Just because every weather service is not provided for the personal attention of someone whizzing around Europe low airways in a TB20 does not make the data provided inaccurate.

Attitude, attitude, bose-x!

The data is inaccurate.

[S-Works]

No the data is not inaccurate. I have that proven to me by the met office forecasters. It is the pilot interpretation that is often incorrect and this largely because the data is skewed towards the heavy end of aviation and does not contain the granular detail that YOU want. Nonetheless the data provided for a 'model' is actually pretty good.

Your problem is that you expect everything to be skewed towards your end of aviation and the flying you do in a non de-iced single only capable of lower airways cruising. You are not equipped for sustained IMC flight and naturally prefer to be on top so you want to see data presented to meet YOUR needs specifically. However I suspect that you do not want to pay the cost of this personal service? Which by the way is available from the Met Office through a 1-1 premium service.

The met office are prepared to listen and understand that the remit is to provide aviation weather services that have to cover ALL of aviation. To this end they have opened the table to a GA representative and are listening.

Like you when I am grubbing around at lower airways levels I want to know where the tops are, if I can get on top and what the icing and convective likelihood is at a granular level applicable to GA. To this end I have asked for the cloud top information above FL100 to be put onto the 215/415 and the response after a clear explanation of our issues was very positive.

Here is a thought for you to take away IO. Rather than moaning and bitching about everything in GA, telling us how everyone is a con-man, how every aircraft is flying death trap and how everyone involved in aviation (apart from yourself) is a thick as pig**** anorak, why don't you come up with some constructive input and actually try and improve things from the inside?

It is easy to sit and slag everything off and to be frank your attitude is one of the reasons that GA is in decline. People only have to read your ranting and they think bugger it I am not getting into that and head off to a golf club.

If things in GA ever stand a chance of improvement it has to be done from the inside by US, the people who it effects directly and have the knowledge to understand how things work and how to change them.

The regulators have become increasingly open to approach by GA in recent times so we need to seize the moment.

You may not like my approach or my style or even my opinions, but the fact is that I am at least prepared to try and do something. If I fail at least I can say I tried, what about you?

[Fuji Abound]

Here is a thought for you to take away IO. Rather than moaning and bitching about everything in GA, telling us how everyone is a con-man, how every aircraft is flying death trap and how everyone involved in aviation (apart from yourself) is a thick as pig**** anorak, why don't you come up with some constructive input and actually try and improve things from the inside?

Come on Bose I know we all have a bit of fun, but this is all rather personal.

Clearly you put a great deal of time into supporting GA - and you are to be commended for doing so - by me any way.

However, there are many reasons why others may not be able to follow your lead.

Never the less by "moaning" many worth while criticisms and issues come to light which hopefully those in a position to do so can take forward.

In running the campaign on the IMC rating I was delighted to read every single criticism that was put to me on this forum - especially yours. (and that is not tongue in cheek).

Moreover, to be fair to IO he was one of the forumites who put a great deal of effort into running the campaign on the IMC rating and attended the meeting with EASA and the CAA in London on our behalf.

[IO540]

Here is a thought for you to take away IO. Rather than moaning and bitching about everything in GA, telling us how everyone is a con-man, how every aircraft is flying death trap and how everyone involved in aviation (apart from yourself) is a thick as pig**** anorak, why don't you come up with some constructive input and actually try and improve things from the inside?

Come on bose-x you have ZERO objective reason to write this crap about me. You have over-stepped the mark well and truly this time, so back off. I have my opinions and I express them forthrightly, but to convert an expressed opinion (which opinion BTW drove you into writing the above???) into a personal attack is overstepping the line.

I do a vast amount to help other pilots - as you well know. I just don't boast about it on here.

Edit: to get back to the subject:

The debate on weather data provision really comes to what part of the pilot population is claimed to be supported.

I would say VFR-only pilots are supported well - for the totally simple reason that VFR is VFR, and you get TAFs and METARs and if when you are flying along you cannot maintain VMC then you are "supposed" to turn back, or do a precautionary landing in a field. Not great, but as I say, VFR is VFR ... These people are supported through ICAO obligations.

I would also say jet transport pilots are supported well - for the totally simple reason that they need to care about only a few things: temperatures, severe icing / freezing rain, severe surface crosswinds, winds aloft (fuel planning), where the jet stream is (fuel planning), etc. And solid fog (most have Cat3 autoland). Most weather we care about is of zero relevance to a jet. These people are very well supported, partly through ICAO obligations and partly because they have loads of $$$ and various 3rd party (commercial) weather data repackagers have sprung up who provide the briefings is the required format.

It leaves a group in the middle: IFR light aircraft pilots. One might have a FL250 ceiling and de-ice but this is not much use if you have a really lousy ride up and down through it, with passengers puking up all over the club seats in the back. This kind of data could be improved - assuming it is technically possible. But the incentive to do so is very small, and (as bookworm more or less says, in his SigWx example) the obligation under ICAO is nonexistent. I have a FL200 ceiling and could buy full TKS, or could buy a TB21 with full TKS and have a FL250 ceiling (most turbocharged IFR piston tourers with de-ice have a similar capability, whether pressurised or not). Yet, I would be writing this just the same.

The minimum equipment to comprehensively escape the last group and play in the middle group is something like a TBM700.

[S-Works]

Fuji, I have said my piece. I like IO a lot as a person, but sometimes I wonder why he bothers flying if everything is as bad as he makes out.

He has an amazing level of knowledge and energy which is generally misdirected and thus wasted.

The industry is it's own worst enemy and unless the people who are the most unhappy with the way things are like IO try to change it rather than complain about it nothing will improve.

The problem with the vitriolic moaning that goes on to 'highlight' issues as you point out is that it makes those who put their own time, effort and money into trying to improve things ask why they bother.

The discussion on this very thread is a classic example. IO's view that the forecast are wrong is based on the fact that they are wrong for HIS particular needs but as far as the accuracy of the forecast and the model used a number of posts have demonstrated that they are in fact correct but often the data is skewed to other areas of aviation. But rather than take a look at the bigger picture people will argue that the data is wrong and not their interpretation of it.

If he is dissatisfied with the data for his needs then he could place a balanced request stating what he needs, how he needs it and how it could be presented. This can be taken away and a cost benefit analysis carried out and a response made rather than just belligerently trying to convince us all the data is currently wrong. If anyone can prove it is wrong by given facts on specific dates then that can be taken back to the Met Office and they will QA the data and give a response. If it is wrong then they will change the model. This is all in the remit for the services they provide and are all governed by SLA's which they are keen to meet.

[Fuji Abound]

The industry is it's own worst enemy and unless the people who are the most unhappy with the way things are like IO try to change it rather than complain about it nothing will improve.

With that I would agree.

I think we might just differ on whether or not you should "complain" if you are not prepared to do anything about it.

You may well know IO a lot better than I, and he may well not publicise the contribution he makes to GA as widely as you might.

Personally, I quite admire your b$$"S to keep on putting yourself up in the way you do but not every one goes about things the same way.

C’est la Vie or perhaps vive la différence if we werent all old women!

[S-Works]

It leaves a group in the middle: IFR light aircraft pilots.

It does indeed, which is exactly what I said. But the point I was making is that just because the data does not fit YOUR needs does not make it wrong just inadequate.

So rather than trying to convince it is wrong when it clearly is not, tell me exactly what it is you want and then maybe we can do something about it.

There is no requirement to service IFR light aircraft pilots as the demand is infinitesimally small. Notwithstanding this, we have an opportunity to put our argument forward and have it acted upon as long as we do so in a clear an level manner and prove that we deserve the place at the table.

Fuiji, I am starting to worry about this regular agreement we are reaching........ :p:)

[Fuji Abound]

Fuiji, I am starting to worry about this regular agreement we are reaching........

Hmmm, now there is a thought. :confused:

Dont worry I dont suppose it will last. :) - I bet you will mention AOPA in a minute :) :)

[S-Works]

Quote:
Fuiji, I am starting to worry about this regular agreement we are reaching........
Hmmm, now there is a thought.

Dont worry I dont suppose it will last. - I bet you will mention AOPA in a minute

No I was waiting for you to do it. Like a number 7 bus always another along in a minute....... :p

[Fuji Abound]

Dont worry I have declared an AOPA truce for the closed season - just watch out for the glorious 12th, but reep hay while the sun is shining. :)

[IO540]

So rather than trying to convince it is wrong when it clearly is not, tell me exactly what it is you want and then maybe we can do something about it.
There is no requirement to service IFR light aircraft pilots as the demand is infinitesimally small. Notwithstanding this, we have an opportunity to put our argument forward and have it acted upon as long as we do so in a clear an level manner and prove that we deserve the place at the table.

I've been banging on about what is wanted for ages but evidently it has been lost in the aggressive responses :ugh:

If you can get the UKMO to release their 3D model data (forecast tephigrams) that would be a start.

[S-Works]

Yes Io, but youyr valid comments were also lost in your assertions that everything was also wrong. See how easy it is?

Tell me more about the 3D data and why you want it. Is it proprietary and therefore the reason it is not available. What product could be created that this data can be used practically for by the average GA IFR flyer rather than those who have an interest in in-depth weather study.

[IO540]

Is it proprietary and therefore the reason it is not available

There you go then. Time for me to crawl back into my cave.

The matter is settled :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Incidentally, it was produced with taxpayers' money.

"Proprietary weather data".. :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[S-Works]

Is it proprietary and therefore the reason it is not available

IO, can I suggest you read what I wrote as you clearly missed the fact that I was asking you a question..........

[IO540]

OK, yes, the UKMO does not release the model because it is sold to commercial weather data resellers.

I have used a few premium rate numbers of professional weather forecasters. They have access to this data. It appears you can get it for 4 digits per year.

If you wanted to improve services to IFR GA, and bearing in mind that nothing can be done about ICAO-mandated products such as the SigWx, releasing the 3D model would be the best thing.

Tephigrams can be interpreted (to a useful level) by anybody who can read a couple of pages of instructions.

If the UKMO released its 3D model, it would not be long before amateur sites like Meteoblue would pick it up and generate graphical products.

Failing that, we always have GFS, so in a perverse sort of way the UKMO is becoming less relevant all the time.

[S-Works]

Your apology is accepted.......

OK so it is unlikely that they will release a commercially sensitive model, so the question is what product can they be asked to produce that will be off value?

[airborne_artist]

The owner/founder of Metcheck was sentenced to eight years in prison for grooming and child sexual abuse.

Eight years for Exeter man who groomed boy, 14, before rape and abuse (http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/years-man-groomed-boy-14-rape-abuse/article-484114-detail/article.html)

The site is still up, but I won't be using it again.

[scooter boy]

Simple but effective punishment for amateur weather forecasting child abusing pervert: Connect a lightning conductor to his D/(k and leave him outside in a thunderstorm.

Primitive I know but bound to be effective.

I will also no longer use that site.

SB

[robin]

Dammit!! Interesting ethical point though. I use the site regularly and find it useful. On the other hand the owner of the site is a paedo and is going to get a long and uncomfortable sentence for abuse.

I hope that the site will continue under new management unconnected with the old regime, so a boycott may or may not be hurting the new owners.

I hope we'll get some information from anyone taking it on shortly, or I will take the same line as others.

[langleybaston]

Interesting thread. I hope it is worth expressing my judgement that, during my 41 year career [ending 1998] there was a huge, out of sight, improvement in weather forecasting across the board. Not that it had a great deal to do with my efforts.
If other fields of human endeavour [think financial, political etc] could be predicted as accurately, we would be in a dream world.
One other point. Those sounding-off at the Met Office might pause for a moment to reflect that we were [and hopefully still are] very dedicated, very well trained, and with a very high professional ethos. Certainly I was proud and privileged to serve those 41 years before the seaweed. The money could have been better, mind you.

[Hamish 123]

Langley,

I very much doubt that anyone questions the dedication and integrity of Met Office staff.

However, the Met Office doesn't help itself much in terms of perception. Not long ago, they were touting the prospect of a hotter and dryer than average summer in 2009, whetting the appetites of VFR pilot such as me, who have struggled to get in the air during the miserable summers of 2007 & 2008.

And then guess what. Since the beginning of June, it's been the same old story in the south east. Rain, wind, low cloud. Thunder and lightning. My garden's been flooded. Extreme weather warnings in the north. The barby's not been out for two weeks. This weekend looks a bit better (although not as good as was being forecast a couple of days ago), then it's back to the same old "unsettled" crapola next week.

To my jaundiced eye, not a great deal of accurate forecasting going on there.

[Fuji Abound]

I think the weather has become like so many other things - there is always a PROB30 of something you might not like.

Must be getting old.

[Captain Smithy]

Aha, this thread rears its ugly head again!

The way I see it, the problem is not so much accuracy, but rather that the forecast is too simplistic and generalised (i.e. dumbed down for thicko Chavs).

Often forecasts talk of, for example, "showers in the North", but what they actually mean is there is a chance of showers in some places in the North; in other words what happens is some places Up North stay dry, others are wet all day; or, as another example, "sunny spells in the South" means that certain places will bask in glorious sunshine all day, yet other places will be dull and overcast. Result? Inevitably the Met Office/BBC is accused of bad forecasting, when really it's not wrong at all, it's the way in which the information is presented; Too simplistic and generalised.

All a forecast is is an educated guess at what the weather will be like at a point in the future. It's not the easiest job... reading back through the thread I think I was far too harsh in some of my criticism which I take back... again a lot of the time the problem is not the forecast but how it is interpreted either by the user or in terms of the way the data is presented either on TV or on a website.

Yes, sometimes a forecast will be wrong, it's impossible to get it right all of the time.

Just my (hopefully more sensible this time) input.

Smithy.

[langleybaston]

Long-Range forecasting is a sick joke, always has been, always will be, we were trying to do it in 1960 [my wife was a pioneer in the taskforce till I rescued her]; it was rubbish then and rubbish now. Hostage to fortune.

My task was short-range, for a very demanding and very educated client, the Staish and his WingCo Ops. Any forecaster deemed not up to the mark BY THE CUSTOMER got nudged on. I expect the nudgees ended up in Long Range forecasting [ugly men] and the TV [not the ugly men] or HR.

RAF Uxbridge, Gatwick Airport as it opened, Nicosia [the Staish was Mickey Martin], Leeming, Topcliffe, Dishforth, Acklington, Church Fenton, Finningley, Guetersloh, JHQ Rheindahlen, 1Group Bawtry [Mike Knight], JHQ Rheindahlen as CMetO [Sandy Wilson], Brize.

Got the T shirt and the Weber.

[Saab Dastard]

Well, one of the most crucial weather forecasts, out to about 48 hours, was made just over 65 years ago by Group Captain JM Stagg.

His team's prediction of a - just adequate - break in the stormy conditions at the beginning of June 1944 allowed Ike to give the Normandy landings the go-ahead.

He was correct and the rest, as they say...

Respect to him for shouldering that initial responsibility. :ok:

SD