The Met Office - not fit for purpose?

[Just wondering]

A disgrace...... and it's getting to be a daily occurrence and it's not the local thing !!

TAF EGPF 230507Z 2306/2406 09008KT 9999 -RA SCT010 BKNO15 BECMG 2306/2309 16016G26KT TEMPO 2306/2320 3000 RA BKN005 PROB 40 TEMPO 23202320 22023G35KT 4000 RA SHRA BKN006 BKN014CB BECMG 2400/2404 VRB06KT=

A short time later - two hours after getting the above !!!

TAF EGPF 231054Z 2312/2412 VRB05KT 9999 SCT010 BKN035 TEMPO 2312/2322 19015KT 4000 RA BKN007=


The new Met Office product - the Actfast .... take a big guess at what the weather will be..... not working out... then look out the window and push out the current weather as a forecast (Actfast)

Gone beyond a joke

[tubby linton]

Crawley International about a week ago gave a taf that forecast basically cavok conditions overnight.I turned up in the morning during the taf period and the actual visibility was 500m in fog!!The biggest failure of the met office was getting rid of all the local met offices and buying a crap computer to do the forecasting for them.

[Scott Diamond]

Heres the latest...

TAF EGPF 231054Z 2312/2412 VRB05KT 9999 SCT010 BKN035
TEMPO 2312/2322 19015KT 4000 RA BKN007

Where are all the flash floods I was promised?!

[B Fraser]

Agreed, many happy days were spent doing obs on the roof at 03772 (EGLL) watching Tridents on 28R.

The Met Office bought a new Cray in the mid 80's and to save money, they wrote their own operating system. The mainframe achieved a proportion of it's full potential a couple of years after being switched on by which time... you guessed..... it had been left in the dust by the next version. All the smart kids left Bracknell, went into IT and made some proper money.

The weather forecasts on telly these days are presented by a bunch of meterosexuals who couldn't plot a tephigram if their life depended on it.

Hey Ho !

[off watch]

Easy answer regarding PF/PK wx :-
Once upon a time there were Met Observers, whose sole job was Observations, employed by the Met Office at both Airports, together with Forecasters at Prestwick. Then the Forecasters moved to Glasgow & the obs transferred to ATSA's, using automated equipment. When the Glasgow office shut, the Forecasts came from Belfast - now they are done in Aberdeen. Despite their fancy computers etc. they obviously don't have a clue about local conditions, hence the poor forecasts quoted above.
It's not uncommon for Thunderstorms, Fog & Snow to appear in amended TAF's, only after they've appeared in the METAR :*

[NorthSouth]

I completely agree re unreliability of forecasts, but I have had no success in complaining to the Met Office, who respond by saying there have only been X occasions when Amended TAFs have been issued as a result of METARs exceeding the TAF parameters by specified amounts. I believe a significant part of the problem is that, without Met observers, the Met Office machine is now particularly bad at estimating changes which make the difference between VFR flight being possible and impossible, such as cloudbase changes in the 1500-2500 height band.

But you do have to be careful about presenting any such case. In the EGPF example above, it wasn't 2 hours between the two TAFs as JW implies, it was nearly six hours, i.e. the normal TAF cycle, and the only significant things missing from the actual weather in the intervening period were the forecast increase in wind strength and the TEMPO 3000 RA BKN005. My guess, looking at the progress of the weather (esp the bands of heavy rain) across central Scotland this morning, is that the absence of same at EGPF was a matter of a few miles difference in exactly where those bands tracked through the Glasgow area.

NS

[RAT 5]

There might be a bigger dicussion point here: about the demise of quality met data. I've noticed an inconsistantancy with the lenght of the TAFs. Sometimes I get 24 hrs, sometime not; well not for all airfields on my list. I've also noticed a definite pessimism in the TAFs compared to METARS and what eventually happens. Further, on Prune, we never received an authoritative answerwhy fronts were removed from SIG Wx charts. Instead of having a big picture to decyfer the TAFs we now have a small fuzzy picture to guess the future.

[RVF750]

Ronaldsway TAF and METAR is pretty good usually....mind you there's a team in the Office there doing Obs and looking out the window still, so that might explain it.

I wish they'd come up with a better one for today though.....

[ZeBedie]

Is it just an English thing, complaining about weather forecasts, when not complaining about the actual weather?

Anyone who was around in the 70's or earlier will remember than you couldn't rely on the forecast for the following day - not at all. Now we are given a very reliable indication of what the weather will be like four or five days ahead. I think the acuracy is stunning.

But anyone expecting total perfection will be dissapointed:rolleyes:

[Agaricus bisporus]

This is not exactly a new phenomenon. In the '80s - '90s, back in the days when you could call the duty forecaster and talk to him (foc) TAFs were regularly and obviously amended, sometines on an hourly basis, as a result of observations that differed from the forecast. In other words, TAFs were being re-written en masse to reflect the METARs being recieved.

With the vast - exponential - improvement in computer power and programming it sems hardly credible that forecasting has got worse since then. In fact I'd say that is an impossible accusation to justify.

We all (should) know that the tiniest variation in temp or pressure can have a dramatic effect on the weather, particularly the formation of fog which is probably the hardest thing to predict accurately.

I always suggest in a briefing that if a TAF is showing reduced vis and low cloud - eg PROB 30 TEMPO 4000 SCT006 - especially at night or towards dawn then to anticipate RVR0300 /// as a real possibility. This is often proved correct.

Maybe it is our expectations, as well as our incresed relianace on Met services - rather than our own Met knowledge and skills and common sense that are to blame?

[Mr Optimistic]

Yeah: good call. A local forecast a week ago was for rain clearing. Watched it on the Met Office radar and then thunderstorms hit. Suddenly a severe weather warning was issued timed at 18:00 but effective from 17:59 !

I wonder if the freely issued forecasts are degraded to encourage take up of their commercial services. As for the half hourly update on the rainfall radar, sheesh. On wunderground.com you get all the US live.

Time to clean up another disfunctional UK public service I think (BBC next).

[Rainboe]

Snowman really likes it cold
Pict.com - Expo (http://pict.com/expo/3660311/5742adb005)

[esa-aardvark]

I remember my father telling me the only forecast worth
having was from a returning Spitfire. At the level of "get them inside, rain coming", but only good for 30 mins or so.
Sorry for possible thread creep !http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Freddielaker]

Best advice I ever had regarding wx was to take an extra ton of fuel for every line of the TAF!! Rationale....?? It's obviously a complex and evolving scenario, don't get caught out!

Seriously though, in 35 years as a professional pilot I think that the accuracy of forecasts has increased beyond all recognition - thank you Met Men...shame we don't meet you any more....

[tomtom_91]

Well at least with the met office's new computer I can see if I will be flying tomorow with a very up to date TAF... oh wait...


BIGGIN HILL No TAF Available

[skua]

not wishing thread creep but...
In today's papers comes news that the mighty Tesco has set up its own internal weather unit because it is so fed up with the unreliability of Met Office forecasts. They have a group of people at 12-12 stores sending in data, but I am not sure where their proper data feeds are from.

[gpn01]

Problem is that the Met Office is trying to forecast a future event which, in the UK, isn't completely forecastable. We're a small island, off the coast of a large land mass, with a huge ocean with warm most air to the West and a source of very cold dry air to the North. Add to this the variability of the jetsream moving around and it all becomes very complex very quickly. If you want an accurate forecats, move to Nevada.

Another problem is the decrease in forecasts based on actual data capture from met station/observation points/sounding/buoys/ships, etc. So much of it is now computer modelled. So, we have computer models doing predictions based on computer generated data. Take out the human experience factor and it's no surprise that the forecasts aren't up to much.

I think the forecasts would improve if they opened the blinds at the met Office in Exeter and let the forecasters look out the window.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The big joke was the recent statement by the boss of the Met Office that their forecasts are the most accurate in the world!

[Just wondering]

It begs the question - if we shutdown the Met Office save for a small number of people who can tell us, from automatic and satellite data, when the really big problem stuff is coming, what would we lose - the four day forecast ???

By the way, on the last of the trilogy, i.e. the 18 to 18 forecast they threw a full 19017G28KT back in and included a TS for good measure.

Honestly, it's not worth having

[angels]

The easiest job in the world is forecasting the weather in Singapore.

Sunny, with occasional showers, some intense. Some over the airport, some not. High 34 degrees low 28.

Sorted. :}

[threemiles]

TAF GCLP valid 01010000 until 31122359
03012G22 9999 SCT040

nuff said

[falcon12]

I have the pleasure, if you like, of being able to see the Met Office from my office desk. Its a largish modern building with a somewhat sloping flat roof. On several occassion you can see at least two men on the roof picking up and holding what may be sea weed...........

On the other hand, dont they say that 'a weather foreacast is just a horoscope with numbers and inaccurate numbers at that!'

[Level bust]

In days of old, the forecaster for Luton was based at Stansted and knew the local weather variations, especially the problem of fog as a result of building an airport on top of a hill!

I have lost track of the number of times recently when we go out in fog and it isn't forecast.

[A A Gruntpuddock]

Off-topic but the reference to phoning the duty forecaster reminded me of a colleague who called the Leuchars met section for 'actuals' at about 4 o'clock most days and got a detailed report.
This went on until the officer (who was obviously impressed by his dedication to flying) asked what type of aircraft he had.
When colleague (golf fanatic) admitted he only wanted to knew whether it was worth going up to St Andrews for a round we could hear the officer across the room!

[Duchess_Driver]

I thought this was Rumours and News thread.

Unfortunately this is neither - it's fact and old hat. :ok:

[NorthSouth]

the reference to phoning the duty forecaster reminded me of a colleague who called the Leuchars met section Of course that forecaster is still there, as they are at all operational RAF stations, and the result is that TAFs for those stations are far more reliable, in my experience, than those for civil airports.
NS

[thetimesreader84]

100% accurate forecast for anywhere in the UK at any time, any season:

"partly cloudy with a chance of rain."

sums it up I think!

All spelling mistakes are iPhone induced.

TTR

[Tone]

I read somewhere that if the forecasters predict that the weather tomorrow will be the same as today they have already achieved 70% accuracy.

[fireflybob]

Ah yes the days when we had forecasters and received a briefing when we went into met!

At Manchester circa 1981 going Ibiza at night. Forecaster briefed us on the weather. I asked him why Palma was forecasting fog but Ibiza was not. Without any hesitation he said "Katabatic drainage off the high ground on the north side of Palma!" - those guys knew their stuff!

[Just wondering]

"Katabatic drainage off the high ground on the north side of Palma!"


Brilliant - how do you program the Cray for that ?

[Ancient Observer]

The Met Office boss is a ppl, so he may well read this.
Keep the feedback coming.

The weather forecast for this Summer was the usual Iraqi one - partly Sunni, but mainly Shi'ite

[SIGMET nil]

At work I have limited access to the fine mesh model output of the UK MET office. For a few years it's been my favourite model in the +36 h time range with regard to position of frontal or convective cloud bands out of a variety of other models from the French, American and German services. I'm also impressed by its handling of small scale surface winds and near-surface moisture in a complex terrain here in Germany. So I felt like saying something nice about the UK MET office, and its big computer.

I would have appreciated some clarification where exactly the criticism of the maker of this thread is aiming at.
I deducted from both TAFs the basic notion, that there would be a longer rainy period ahead, sometimes with moderately reduced visibility and some low clouds, which would end about midnight utc.
From the first TAF I got the idea that some convective enhancement of the rain was expected starting at 20 utc the 23rd. There were some syntax errors included in the first TAF, provided it was quoted correctly.

I checked radar pictures on meteox.com and the relevant EGPF METARs. Shortly before the first TAF was compiled, CB clusters with strong showers were present upstream over Ireland and reached Scotland in weakened form over the day with mostly light rain and the ceiling not below 1000 ft agl, at least not for long.

A convective looking rain band reached Glasgow by 20 utc the 23rd, precisely as the first TAF had predicted 15 hours ahead. This brought the strongest rain of the day and the first TAF had timed that one very nicely.

The strong winds however didn't show up in the regular METARs. I would say that moderate rain, wind and low ceiling were somehow overpredicted by the first TAF, but that goes for most TAFs I've seen in my life.
However one would have to see the special reports of Glasgow or some real time data to judge wether some significant weather went by unrecorded in between the regular reports, e.g. if there wasn't a brief gustfront passing the airfield by about 20 utc.

So I totally fail to see yet why just this particular TAF would provoke such criticism and a new thread on PPRUNE.

--

As a sidenote, a brief period of morning fog around 5 utc the 24th seemed to have affected only parts of the aerodrome and wasn't anticipated by both TAFs.

[Mike Read]

My first job on leaving school, aged just sixteen, was as a met assistant at London Airport. Very interesting and a great start to an aviation career. Job entailed reporting actual wx, plotting charts, tephigrams, etc. Was taught a great deal of met by the Panam flight despatcher who studied the charts and created the forecast for their transAtlantic departures (by special arrangement with Mr Oddie, the senior Met Officer.) I have always wondered if it was legal to use under eighteens for the night shift but too late now to sue the Met Office. Occasionally sat in the runway caravan in foggy conditions counting the number of runway lights I could see. Never understood why the runway controller couldn't do it, but even in 1947 "it ain't my job".

In 1988 or so having driven in thick fog from near Bicester to Luton to operate to BRU and back I phoned the duty forecaster at Bracknell to enquire on the likelyhood of diverting on my return four hours later. He admitted he had no knowledge of the fog I had passsed through.

In 1991 operating from BRU to OPO at night, knowing that the Portugese signals set up were on strike I phoned the "expert" to ask for a landing forecast. He told me that there was no information available. I said "you are a forecaster - look at the chart and tell me what you believe weather will be like. His reply was "did you go there last night? If so, probably the same". I had and it was but he was paid to tell me.

It has all gone down hill since I left the Met Office in Nov 1949 to join the RAF. ( I should point out that when I joined at LAP half the Met staff were serving RAF guys and girls.)

Nothing much seems to have improved since the time of ocean weather ships. Forecasters have no practical experience.

p.s. John Elias, are you still out there?

[jxk]

The forecast for Hampshire this am was 'white cloud'. I'm looking forward to seeing: pink, red, purple and yellow:)

[SIGMET nil]

@ JW: A katabatic wind is a gravity driven mountain wind. I daresay every serious fine mesh weather model will take that into account, being run on a Cray or a home PC.

I'd be seriously curious, though, how a fall wind will cause formation of fog.

[Triskel]

Interesting to hear several pilots bemoaning the removal of Met Office observers and forecasters from airfields and the loss of face-to-face briefing. The trend began with Liverpool and Blackpool in the 1980s and although many aircrew complained vociferously to other Met staff that it was a move in the wrong direction, very very few of them took the trouble to write their views to the CAA - so the trend continued........... We now have a team of aviation forecasters in Exeter who know their met and have much better model guidance but haven't spent years working in an airfield environment talking over operational issues face-to-face with the guys flying the routes and gaining an understanding of their real requirements.

[Scimitar]

Who was the wise old meteorologist who summed it up like this?

"Meteorology is not an exact science - and may be considerably affected by the weather".

[ray cosmic]

When planning how to occupy the new offices in the then to-be-built brand new Passenger Terminal in LUX a couple years ago, the best was this:
The Met office was planned smack in the middle; no way to look or go outside easily. Some time passed until the people who were supposed to work in said office got air (or was it gas :} ) of it. They only had one question:
"How can we make observations from an office isolated from the outside?"
As you guessed; some re-planning has been done! :E

[tubby linton]

I am not a fan of the 30 hour taf.Nothing civil stays airborne that long so why do we need a forecast of this duration which is frequently amended during its period of validity?
My principal flying is from Crawley to the eastern Med and the Red Sea coast of Egypt.The taf can have changed a number of times by the time I am starting on the return sector and be markedly different from the Met Office's first guess of the day.In these days of trying to save our company's money the forecast can have a marked difference on the fuel uplifted down route and the penalty of flying these reserves back to the UK for 6 hours.

[Just wondering]

Sigmet Nil - make no mistake this is day and daily in every respect - I just chose this occasion to voice my frustration - don't pick holes in my one example to shoot down the arguement. Did you deduct anything about the differences in the forecast about the wind........?

The health and safety approach to weather forecasting has now gone beyond a joke and is now causing real safety issues to those who use forecasts - the sailing fraternity in Scotland has given up on anything originating from the Met Office - once again, make no mistake they are utterly useless. The growth of commercial pay for weather sites proves the point .......... and please don't give us the local conditions excuse.

"Actfasts" - the way of the future....... it's why the BBC TV met people spend 85% of the forecast telling you what we have already had today.

I ask the question - if we didn't have the Met Office would it be such a lose ?

[fyrefli]

Problem is that the Met Office is trying to forecast a future event which, in the UK, isn't completely forecastable. We're a small island, off the coast of a large land mass, with a huge ocean with warm most air to the West and a source of very cold dry air to the North. Add to this the variability of the jetsream moving around and it all becomes very complex very quickly. If you want an accurate forecats, move to Nevada.

Or use MetCheck ;) Yes, I know you can't use it professionally. Those of us needing accurate local forecasts for recreational purposes though, including planning flying with aircraft whose usable range of weather is very small, highly wind-direction dependent and needing little or no precipitation, generally find it remarkably accurate, up to several days in advance (once one factors in one's own understanding of the general synopsis and wider weather environment).

Long and short - The Met Office should be capable of being better than their current performance.

[SIGMET nil]

Sigmet Nil - make no mistake this is day and daily in every respect - I just chose this occasion to voice my frustration - don't pick holes in my one example to shoot down the arguement.I'm only here to learn and would appreciate to understand, what precisely you deem to be wrong in these forecasts.

My perspective is, that both forecasters wanted to say, that the basic conditions are visibility 10+ and clouds better than 1500 ft agl and it's going to rain every now and then with Visibility not below 3 km and ceiling not below 500 ft agl, but no longer than local midnight and from then on weather would be fairly quiet.

Which is more or less what happened in reality, if you discount the brief spell of morning fog the day after.

In TAF 1 the forecaster made a special point on the 20 utc rain and thought some CBs might come with that and produce strong gusts, which was maybe not too far fetched with regard to the generally lively southwesterly flow in the area. However, the pronounced gusts with the 20 utc rainshower band and the associated CBs are the only significant formal difference to TAF 2.

But after having seen the RADAR pictures I can perfectly understand why both forecasters thought, that the cloudbase might be temporarily below 1000 ft agl and visibility below 5 km. I tend to think the rain mostly came from CBs, who decayed during the overwater transit from Ireland to Scotland.

The second TAF didn't discern between the earlier showers and the 20 utc rain band and thought it would be all the same, anyway. Although that was formally correct, the 20 utc rain band indeed seems to have been the "highlight" of the day, weatherwise.

I would appreciate to learn from you (or any other pilot), why precisely you think these TAFs are of poor quality or maybe even a safety issue. (aside from the poor syntax in TAF1, where I don't know wether it stems from the original.)

--
TAF EGPF 230507Z 2306/2406 09008KT 9999 -RA SCT010 BKNO15 BECMG 2306/2309 16016G26KT TEMPO 2306/2320 3000 RA BKN005 PROB 40 TEMPO 23202320 22023G35KT 4000 RA SHRA BKN006 BKN014CB BECMG 2400/2404 VRB06KT=

A short time later - two hours after getting the above !!!

TAF EGPF 231054Z 2312/2412 VRB05KT 9999 SCT010 BKN035 TEMPO 2312/2322 19015KT 4000 RA BKN007=For convenience I've added the relevant METARs that I could find. (Source: ogimet.com)

SA 24/08/2009 11:50-> METAR EGPF 241150Z 21009KT 9999 SCT035 17/10 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 11:20-> METAR EGPF 241120Z 20009KT 9999 SCT030 17/09 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 10:50-> METAR EGPF 241050Z 21010KT 9999 SCT025 16/09 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 10:20-> METAR EGPF 241020Z 19011KT 150V220 9999 SCT028 16/09 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 09:50-> METAR EGPF 240950Z 19012KT 9999 SCT028 16/10 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 09:20-> METAR EGPF 240920Z 19010KT 9999 SCT020 15/10 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 08:50-> METAR EGPF 240850Z 20008KT 9999 SCT016 15/11 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 08:20-> METAR EGPF 240820Z 19006KT 160V220 9999 FEW010 SCT016 14/11
Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 07:50-> METAR EGPF 240750Z VRB02KT 9999 FEW012 SCT020 13/11 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 07:20-> METAR EGPF 240720Z VRB03KT 9999 FEW020 12/11 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 06:50-> METAR EGPF 240650Z 03003KT 9999 SCT020 10/10 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 06:20-> METAR EGPF 240620Z 03003KT 9999 SCT035 09/09 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 05:50-> METAR EGPF 240550Z VRB03KT 9999 FEW035 10/10 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 05:20-> METAR EGPF 240520Z 05003KT 5000 R05/0550 BCFG FEW045 09/08
Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 04:50-> METAR EGPF 240450Z 00000KT 7000 R23/0600 PRFG NSC 10/09 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 04:20-> METAR EGPF 240420Z 26002KT CAVOK 10/10 Q1004=
SA 24/08/2009 03:50-> METAR EGPF 240350Z NIL=
SA 24/08/2009 03:20-> METAR EGPF 240320Z AUTO 27003KT 9999NDV NCD 11/10 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 02:50-> METAR EGPF 240250Z AUTO 22006KT 9999NDV NCD 12/11 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 02:20-> METAR EGPF 240220Z AUTO 23006KT 9999NDV NCD 12/11 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 01:50-> METAR EGPF 240150Z 21004KT CAVOK 11/10 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 01:20-> METAR EGPF 240120Z 24005KT 9999 FEW026 13/11 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 00:50-> METAR EGPF 240050Z 22005KT 9999 SCT029 13/11 Q1003=
SA 24/08/2009 00:20-> METAR EGPF 240020Z 25004KT 9999 SCT026 14/12 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 23:50-> METAR EGPF 232350Z 26005KT 9999 SCT024 BKN030 14/13 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 23:20-> METAR EGPF 232320Z 26003KT 9999 BKN025 15/13 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 22:50-> METAR EGPF 232250Z 28006KT 9999 -SHRA SCT009 SCT014 BKN020 15/13 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 22:20-> METAR EGPF 232220Z 22012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT016 BKN028 16/15 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 21:50-> METAR EGPF 232150Z 21008KT 9999 FEW012 SCT018 BKN030 16/15 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 21:20-> METAR EGPF 232120Z 21010KT 9999 SCT010 BKN016 17/15 Q1002 RERA=
SA 23/08/2009 20:50-> METAR EGPF 232050Z 21009KT 9999 -SHRA SCT010 BKN016 17/15 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 20:20-> METAR EGPF 232020Z 20012KT 5000 RA SCT015 BKN020 17/15 Q1003 RERA=
SA 23/08/2009 19:50-> METAR EGPF 231950Z 19012KT 4000 RA FEW015 BKN020 BKN030 17/15 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 19:20-> METAR EGPF 231920Z 19014KT 9999 VCSH FEW015 SCT020 BKN030 18/15 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 18:50-> METAR EGPF 231850Z 20015KT 9999 VCSH FEW020 SCT030 18/15 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 18:20-> METAR EGPF 231820Z 19014KT 9999 VCSH FEW020 SCT040 18/15 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 17:50-> METAR EGPF 231750Z 19014KT 9000 -SHRA FEW016 SCT024 18/16 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 17:20-> METAR EGPF 231720Z 19014KT 9999 SCT018TCU SCT024 BKN045 19/16 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 16:50-> METAR EGPF 231650Z 20017KT 9999 FEW018 SCT024 19/16 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 16:20-> METAR EGPF 231620Z 19018KT 9999 -RA FEW018 BKN035 19/16 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 15:50-> METAR EGPF 231550Z 18014KT 9999 -RA SCT020 SCT026 BKN035 18/16 Q1002 RERA=
SA 23/08/2009 15:20-> METAR EGPF 231520Z 18012KT 9000 -RA SCT020 BKN026 18/16 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 14:50-> METAR EGPF 231450Z 18012KT 9999 -RA FEW018 BKN024 BKN030 19/16 Q1003=
SA 23/08/2009 14:20-> METAR EGPF 231420Z 16009KT 120V220 9999 -SHRA BKN018 BKN024 19/16 Q1004=
SA 23/08/2009 13:50-> METAR EGPF 231350Z 16005KT 130V200 9999 -RA BKN020 18/16 Q1004=
SA 23/08/2009 13:20-> METAR EGPF 231320Z 14007KT 120V190 9999 -RA FEW020 BKN030 18/16 Q1005=
SA 23/08/2009 12:50-> METAR EGPF 231250Z 16007KT 9999 SCT016 BKN022 18/16 Q1005=
SA 23/08/2009 12:20-> METAR EGPF 231220Z 16011KT 9999 -SHRA BKN016 18/16 Q1005=
SA 23/08/2009 11:50-> METAR EGPF 231150Z 17011KT 9999 VCSH BKN016 18/16 Q1005=
SA 23/08/2009 11:20-> METAR EGPF 231120Z 16009KT 9999 BKN016 18/15 Q1006 REDZ=
SA 23/08/2009 10:50-> METAR EGPF 231050Z 15005KT 120V200 9999 -RA FEW015 SCT030 BKN040 17/15 Q1006=
SA 23/08/2009 10:20-> METAR EGPF 231020Z 11006KT 9999 -RA FEW015 SCT025 BKN030 16/15 Q1006=
SA 23/08/2009 09:50-> METAR EGPF 230950Z 14005KT 080V200 6000 -RA FEW010 SCT020 BKN030 16/15 Q1007=
SA 23/08/2009 09:20-> METAR EGPF 230920Z 11006KT 060V140 9999 -RA SCT012 SCT018 BKN024 16/15 Q1007 REDZ=
SA 23/08/2009 08:50-> METAR EGPF 230850Z 06005KT 9999 -RA SCT016 BKN022 16/14 Q1007 REDZ=
SA 23/08/2009 08:20-> METAR EGPF 230820Z 09005KT 9999 -RA FEW020 BKN030 15/14 Q1008=
SA 23/08/2009 07:50-> METAR EGPF 230750Z 11004KT 080V170 9999 -RA SCT020 BKN030 15/14 Q1008=
SA 23/08/2009 07:20-> METAR EGPF 230720Z 18005KT 150V240 6000 -RA FEW015 SCT025 BKN030 15/14 Q1008 REDZ=
SA 23/08/2009 06:50-> METAR EGPF 230650Z 16004KT 110V220 6000 -RA FEW010 SCT020 BKN030 15/14 Q1009=
SA 23/08/2009 06:20-> METAR EGPF 230620Z 20004KT 150V240 9999 VCSH BKN010 15/14 Q1009=
SA 23/08/2009 05:50-> METAR EGPF 230550Z 17007KT 130V210 9000 -DZ SCT010 BKN016 BKN022 15/14 Q1009=

[callsign Metman]

OK, I'll stick my head above the parapet. I'm a metman and have been for just over 20 years. I'm not in the front line operational departments anymore so can't really comment on forecast accuracy. However I can comment on and the changes I've seen and experienced in my time. When I joined as an observer in the good old days the Met Office was fully public funded and access to forecasts and products was free to all.
Then in 1996 the Met became a trading fund at the insistence of the government and as such had to show an operating profit to it's owners, the MOD. In the years since there has been constant and not insignificant pressure to reduce costs to remain competitive. It's the same in all industry of course and the Met is no different. These pressures have led to station closures, reorganisations and rationalisations across the organisation. Some of these changes were for the better but some were not (in my opinion). I believe that the loss of the local metman to the aviation or marine community has been detrimental to the office in terms of reputation. However, that being said, SOMEONE has to pay for the infrastructure and times are hard so something has to give. Unfortunately our customers are always looking at ways to reduce costs and our competitors can sometimes seem an attractive option. I think though that the Met Office is in a difficult position because as the UK's national weather service (and member of the World Met Organisation) it is obliged to maintain a comprehensive observations network of ground stations, bouys, radar, aircraft and satellites. This is obviously not cheap but provides vast amounts of good quality data to input into our very comprehensive models. Unfortunately under free data access rules this raw data must also be made available to our competitors who can simply input it into their models. Voila...forecasts, usually less accurate, but cheaper because they have less overheads.

there you have it..in a nutshell the economics of the trading fund Met Office.

[duggymac]

Having worked in met for over 40 years I can see some of your points. However I have yet to see a Special from any of the civil airports which are now done by ATC etc not proffessional Observers and thus a great gap in the actual weather leaves forecasters not getting valuable information.
I can recall when we also used to get info. from Aircrew but that had dswindled away before I left the met. office
Duggymac

[Captain Smithy]

Looking at the METARs provided for the forecast period (thanks SIGMET nil) the TAFs do seem fairly reasonable to me, with the exception that the strong winds didn't materialise until late afternoon/early evening on the 23rd, even then not as strong as forecast. With the light winds in the morning, when the 12-12 TAF was issued the forecast wind was revised. To me that seems perfectly reasonable. A forecast was made, the wind wasn't as strong as they thought so they revised the forecast.

Sometimes the problem is how we pilots interpret the forecast. I used to complain a bit about TAFs being wrong (there was a thread a while back on Private Flying on this subject) but then I realised the problem was how I was interpreting the TAF. I was still a student then, now I understand it a bit more. Although yes there are occasions when I read a TAF, look at the METARs and think "What the f...?".

What was a problem was the unforecast early morning Fog. Fog is a difficult thing to forecast, but here is one area where perhaps human input (with a little local knowledge) would help.

Sometimes forecasts can be spot-on, other times they can be questionable. Such is the science of forecasting I suppose.

There used to be a member here, PKPF68-77, who was very good at explaining all things Wx. However I'm not sure if he's still around; unfortunately he got involved in the willy-waving contest on the Global Warming thread on Jet Blast a while back and I've not seen him around here since.

Smithy

[Goldfish Jack]

Down in Africa Met always get the met right... they just get the day and time wrong sometimes!!!:ok:

[FullWings]

Ever since the famous words "don't worry, there's not going to be a hurricane..." were used, general UK forecasts have largely erred towards the poor side, IMHO. I can see why in that the fuss over predicted bad weather that turns out fairly benign is far less than that over unforecast downpours, storms, snow, etc.

In the quoted example, there's also a five hour gap between the old and new forecast, in which the CBs have gone as well as the winds associated with them. Overall, the accuracy doesn't seem too bad, considering they have to forecast what the worst likely conditions are going to be (visibility, cloud ceiling, wind, SIGWX, etc.) during the period. There are also tolerances involved - I don't know what they are but they might be in ICAO Annex 3, if you want to download that for £75...

Also, in terms of commercial operations, are the two TAFs that much different? Wind is not much off the runway when stronger, min. vis. is 4Km in RA in both and cloud ceiling is 5-600' vs. 700'.

It reminds me somewhat of India: there must have been an unforecast thunderstorm in 1953 because the TAFs generally include a TEMPO TSRA for the whole period at the end, even when there is no weather at all in the rest of the forecast!

[Miles Magister]

When we had forecasters at airports they used to have a big book (Approx A3 pages) which described local anomalies and variations in different weather systems.

It had been complied by resident forecasters over many years and covered all UK airfields and many world airfields where we used to go to. It was an excelent book and remarkably accurate which I used to take my co-pilots to be briefed on by those very nice and capable resident forecasters.

If anyone still has a copy I would love to see it.

MM

[Just wondering]

Sigmet wrote:



the basic conditions are visibility 10+ and clouds better than 1500 ft agl and it's going to rain every now and then with Visibility not below 3 km and ceiling not below 500 ft agl, but no longer than local midnight




TAF EGPF 230507Z 2306/2406 09008KT 9999 -RA SCT010 BKNO15 BECMG 2306/2309 16016G26KT TEMPO 2306/2320 3000 RA BKN005 PROB 40 TEMPO 2320/2323 22023G35KT 4000 RA SHRA BKN006 BKN014CB BECMG 2400/2404 VRB06KT


Sigmet after over 30 years of flying here's my take on the above forecast:

- ALL DAY it's going to be very blustery (G26) with big crosswinds on most local runways and some extremely heavy showers (3/4000m). Spend the day making sure all the aircraft are tied down and secure or better still see if you can get a couple in the hanger because later the met man is pretty sure (PROB 40) it's going to gust 35kt in these big showers. Later sit and worry about an aircraft being damaged (we always get +10KT on the gust the met man forecasts)

In addition, with respect to the actuals and being there to see it - the visibility was excellent all day save for a shower, which gave 6k at 1050 (6k not a problem ,3k = big problem) -the 500 foot cloud base never materialised and the wind was less than 12kt all day.

I tracked the storm on radar and basically it ran north out of Ireland and did not cross the central belt of Scotland. The Belfast visibility was much lower than forecast with, I believe, RVRs being issued.

I'm not into picking detail out of actuals/tafs as I believe you need to take the big picture with weather. Saying it's "going to rain now and then with visibility not below 3 km" whilst leaving out the wind seriously distorts the picture. My take on the forecasters story was that, there is a big storm area coming and its not going to be pretty - however, it missed.

Tricky to forecast the UK weather - ok no problem, don't try........ spend your energy and resources into telling us when the hurricanes and big dumps of snow etc are coming because if it's not right, it's not fit for purpose.

[stickjoc]

Channel Islands based pilots have had to put up with proffesional aftercasters for years,the early morning TAF is always going to change when Jersey met wake up and see what is actually happening, then they forecast thunderstorms even if its clearly a stable airmass, forecast fog when there is none then change their minds, but very often do not forecast fog, so it appears, then they ammend the TAF!

[Angel`s Playmate]

The biggest problems with the TAF`s is:

The young F/O`s BELIEVE in it !! :{

Gosh, anyone more motion lotion??:E

[Triskel]

Re #48 MilesMagister - We do still have a copy of the big yellow book 'Airport Weather Characteristics' if you're passing through EGNS (with thanks to Dash&Thump #8 for comments on TAFs/METARs)
Re #42 I agree with the detailed analysis SIGMETnil - as FullWing says in #47 there are parameters for introducing change groups in TAFs (and TRENDs) - but you don't have to pay £75 to download ICAO Annex 3 since all of the info is freely available in UK AIP GEN3.5 at http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/gen/EG_GEN_3_5_en.pdf

[C-N]

Not all young FO's are incompetent in weather. I know lots of pilots who are meteorologists by profession. The young FO on your right seat might be better in MET. Besides, most FO's are fresh from instructing. They might be lacking in experience, but I bet they have comparable knowledge to that guy doing your checkride.

[LYKA]

What frustrates most is the PROB TEMPOs of TS forecasted for +9 hrs of a 24 hr TAF. Yesterdays SE UK forecast being the case in point. PROB 30 Tempos of TS absolutly nothing big around the SE yet the fact wasn't amended to reflect the fcst was wrong. Result was most of my mates came in with ++ fuel (quite rightly too based on the fcst), big cost and enviromental impact too.

[Captain Smithy]

Just wondering

Your interpretation of the TAF is largely correct; very poor weather was forecast, i.e. the forecaster(s) believed that the storm was going to hit Glasgow; however what happened was that it wasn't quite as bad as they first thought, and it dissapated before reaching the West Coast.

Re: the point about the vis being not too bad in Glasgow and being worse than forecast in Belfast. Vis is notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to forecast correctly, especially when precipitation is involved; any estimate of vis in a TAF when RA or SHRA is involved is at best a stab in the dark. The vis might get very poor in a heavy shower, there again if the precip is light then the vis may stay well above 10k.

I can understand some of your points though, but the fact is that the weather didn't turn out as bad as it looked it was going to be. I don't really see the problem with that. Perhaps a tad pessimistic it could be said, but there again the forecast is always the absolute worst the Met thinks its going to be, with the data they have at the time.

Saying that the Met Office isn't fit for purpose is a little harsh though, perhaps a little too "Daily Mail". There are limitations to forecasting, we have to understand that and work with it.

Just my take on it...

Smithy

[fireflybob]

I think one of the main issues is this feeling that the quality of forecasting has deteriorated maybe in the last few years.

My perception is that the (old) shorter TAfs of 9 hours were more accurate than the current 24 hour TAFs.

[JWP1938]

Veering slightly off topic but illustrating how bad forecasts used to be: back in the late 70s I saw a news report (from the USA) in which one of the top weather forecasting companies protested that they were quite rightly proud of their forecasts as they were the best and, on average, were right 30% of the time. This meant that they were wrong more often than right. :eek:

[Just wondering]

Smithy


dissapated before reaching the West Coast


It didn't dissipate it went steaming north up the West coast


Re: the point about the vis being not too bad in Glasgow and being worse than forecast in Belfast


That's a statement of fact - don't need a lesson in viz. Glasgow viz was good (much greater than 10k) apart from one actual of 6k.


but the fact is that the weather didn't turn out as bad as it looked it was going to be. I don't really see the problem with that.


... no problem if you're taking a knitting class but not for aviation flight planning

tad pessimistic

A "tad" - Prob 40 - Gust 35 ?!


with the data they have at the time


I watched it track up through Ireland on radar - I also looked at the actuals from Shannon, Dublin and Belfast - perhaps they could have done the same and updated the TAF.


Saying that the Met Office isn't fit for purpose is a little harsh though


Not fit for my purpose (such as making a safe decision to go flying) and it seems many others such as the sailing community.

Don't forget the mistake could have been the other way round - a good forecast which turns into a very bad one.... which happens often too.

There are limitations to forecasting

Not sure the Met office agrees : http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/marine/safesee.pdf

[Rossian]

In the really bad old days you could RELY on the forecast being wrong - now with the Cray beavering away, the forecasts are NOT ALWAYS wrong, but you don't know which ones. Is that an improvement? I only want to know.

The Ancient Mariner

[Captain Smithy]

Just wondering

It didn't dissipate it went steaming north up the West coast

Fair point. Bad explanation on my part. I stand corrected.

That's a statement of fact - don't need a lesson in viz. Glasgow viz was good (much greater than 10k) apart from one actual of 6k.

Again fair point, but the difference in forecast vis. vs. actual seemed to be one of your main bones of contention, so I just thought I'd mention it. Didn't mean to sound like I was lecturing you or anything. ;)

... no problem if you're taking a knitting class but not for aviation flight planning

No need to be sarky chum... but plenty of us seem to make do with it okay for flight planning. Perhaps knitting TAFs would be useful however for the grannies :)

A "tad" - Prob 40 - Gust 35 ?!

Sorry, semi-humourous understatement.

I watched it track up through Ireland on radar - I also looked at the actuals from Shannon, Dublin and Belfast - perhaps they could have done the same and updated the TAF.

Agreed, why this didn't happen I don't know.

Not fit for my purpose (such as making a safe decision to go flying) and it seems many others such as the sailing community.

Unfortunately for yourself the MO are the sole provider of all the UK's TAFs, there again there are plenty of us, Smithy included, who do find it fit for purpose and get on with it fine. I can't speak for the sailors however.

Don't forget the mistake could have been the other way round - a good forecast which turns into a very bad one.... which happens often too.

It can happen, and no doubt will. There was an almighty storm the year I was born which Michael Fish told us not to worry about... :uhoh:

When they say "accurate" in that leaflet, no doubt they are referring to their own standards, set by themselves. They are a profit-making company so they have to blow their trumpet a bit. Again though I can't speak for marine forecasts but the aviation ones mostly seem reasonable to me, apart from the occasional "blip", which is to be expected, unless they start employing Mystic Meg, or using Tarot Cards etc. to predict the Wx, to ensure 100% accuracy ;)

Smithy

[Just wondering]

Smithy

was an almighty storm the year I was born which Michael Fish told us not to worry about... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif


Remember it well had to divert from Heathrow that day !

[LYKA]

...and why oh why were the fronts removed from the Sig Wx charts, doesn't seem that the user figured in that gem at all

[SIGMET nil]

@ Just Wondering : First of all thanks for taking the time to give a detailed description of your thoughts. I read both what you wrote to me and Captain Smithy and I think I can see a good part of your view of things, now.

Please correct me, where I'm wrong in my following hypothesis :

From the whole of what you write I conclude, that you thought of the bad weather area as a more or less homogenuous entity that would move in with lengthy periods of rain, poor visibility and low ceilings in connection with strong winds. Maybe like a warmfront or a weather active warmsector after a warmfront.

With your statements and after having watched the RADAR pictures (http://www.meteox.com/hist.aspx?URL) from the 23rd of the whole of the British Isles ten times or more I get a totally different "greater picture", as you put it.
What you are calling "the storm" was a multitude of smaller and larger rainbands with frequent embedded shower-CBs within a very clear airmass, that all would travel on a northeasterly path from the Irish West Coast over Northern Ireland and then deep into Scotland. They gained and lost intensity in very rapid cycles as dictated by a) available radiation and b) the superimposed complex pattern of secondary troughs (fluctuations in upper winds rapidly changing lifting and instability patterns.)

I disagree with your opinion that most of the bad weather "steamed up the Scottish West Coast" as I couldn't see that on the composite RADAR pictures at all. The rain bands spawned many CBs with strong showers over Ireland, which infallibly lost some power over the stretch of water enroute to Scotland, which might be the reason, why the forecasters wrote rain in the TAFs and not rain showers.

Nevertheless it was a convective weather pattern and the lateral structure of the precipitation area was as complex as the blossom of a rose and as predictable as the trajectory of a falling feather, while I suppose you thought of the "weather area" as a rigid structure like a brick, with a similarly predictable trajectory. While it is easy to forecast the flight path of a brick after its launch - e.g. you can catch it - what you are demanding is like a forecast of the shape of the rose blossom, while we are still looking at its bud.

To illuminate what I just said I will show some METARs from Belfast, as you gave me a very valuable hint by mentioning RVRs.

Belfast had basically the same weather as Glasgow that day. But, inland the shower-CBs could pick up a lot more energy from surface warming than their wrecks which stranded every now and then in Glasgow. Just one of the CBs made a direct hit in Belfast and you can see the result here:


SA 23/08/2009 17:20-> METAR EGAA 231720Z 18010KT 150V220 9999 FEW018 SCT039 17/15 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 16:50-> METAR EGAA 231650Z 19011KT 9999 FEW013 SCT016 18/16 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 16:20-> METAR EGAA 231620Z 18009KT 140V220 8000 SCT015 17/16 Q1001=
SA 23/08/2009 15:50-> METAR EGAA 231550Z 17012KT 8000 SHRA SCT019CB 17/16 Q1001=
SA 23/08/2009 15:20-> METAR EGAA 231520Z 21006KT 170V230 6000 VCSH SCT016CB 16/16 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 14:50-> METAR EGAA 231450Z 20009KT 8000 VCSH FEW007 SCT015CB 15/15 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 14:20-> METAR EGAA 231420Z 23018KT 1500 R25/0600 R07/P1500 +SHRA BKN010CB 16/15 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 13:50-> METAR EGAA 231350Z 17015G27KT 140V200 9000 -RA BKN019 18/15 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 13:20-> METAR EGAA 231320Z 16016KT 130V190 9999 BKN026 18/15 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 12:50-> METAR EGAA 231250Z 16015G27KT 9999 -SHRA SCT017 18/15 Q1002=
SA 23/08/2009 12:20-> METAR EGAA 231220Z 18012KT 140V210 9999 FEW014 BKN017 18/16 Q1002=

It ws just one strong shower out of many others that missed the airfield by a small margin. What the forecaster is scared of, is that you might be caught in weather like that of 14:20z when strong showers are underway. That is why during days with shower activity some harsh minima are included in the TEMPO groups, although the weather may be perfectly flyable for 95 % of the day.

Still it is not state of the art to predict the trajectory and intensity of single convective cells such as those of showers and thunderstorms over an extended period of time, say more of 30 minutes, with reasonable accuracy.

I already wrote a lot, if you are still with me, one more word to TAF interpretation with regard to the wind, that you stressed so highly. TAF compilation is regulated by ICAO Annex 3, as already mentioned in this thread. Annex 3 allows the inclusion of gusts in TAFs only above 25 knots. So, if I think the wind will be 16016G24KT I only write 16016KT, while only 2 measly knots are separating my expectation from the 16016G26KT you are taking offense at. At least during the afternoon I'd be surprised, if gusts hadn't come in the 20 to 23 knots range in Glasgow.

Thanks again for sharing your detailed opinion - it was very insightful for me to see your practical view point and what you expect from a TAF.

I'm sure, in just a few years there will be a lot of competition in European Aviation Meteorology services. So maybe soon you might be able to choose where you get your information from. Additionally modern self briefing providers are giving professional pilots more and more opportunities to browse weather data according to their own demands and skills.
So, if you don't like the MET-office, I see some hope for you.

[robin]

Smithy

Quote:
was an almighty storm the year I was born which Michael Fish told us not to worry about...
Remember it well had to divert from Heathrow that day !

I too remember that day - I was working in Central London that night and the storm happened during the small hours over a period of around 40 minutes. The day before was ok, and the day after was too, except for the fresh to strong winds.

It was well forecast from the Sunday farmers forecast and arrived pretty much as expected. Everyone remembers the Michael Fish 'not a hurricane' speech, but no-one seems to recall his appearance on the Sunday.


Actually, as I write this, it astounds me that they were more accurate with their timing than we are now. They just got the track of the storm slightly wrong.

[javelin]

I use the Met Office 'civvy forecast' a lot.

It amazes me how many times a forecast 2 or 3 days away can be plagues of frogs and bolts of lightning, yet by the time it is within 24 hours away, it is peace calm and fluffy clouds.

I have heard a lot of complaints from event organisers - both aviation and not, complaining that they have had overly pessimistic forecasts result in them cancelling events - very poor :sad:

I am now reverting to good old ATPL techniques and looking at the synoptic charts on the Met Office site and doing my own - it is usually better :ok:

Here is a prediction - later on Saturday and into Sunday, clearing weather to calmer, pleasant conditions over the south, spreading to the north.

Gulp :ooh:

[Fragman88]

A Light one

After 12 Hours across the Pacific, B744 inbound to California's Finest. A couple of hours out the ACARS delivers `Revised forecast'. LAX has gone from from the forecast 8K HZ to being out, in fog, clearance some time away.

Being tired etc, forgot my usual rule of never sending an ACARS without crew consultation and a 30 min. thinking delay. So I sent a reply "Updated Forecast copied. Here is my updated fuel requirement, Please advise coordinates, frequencies, etc for tanker rendevous for airborne refuel'.

We thought it was funny so off it went.

Tea with no biscuits ensued on return to base where the cost of `Frivolous use of the ACARS' was explained to me--particularly as it `Automatically went to many departments other than Flight Ops'. Funnily enough I was told the other departments loved it to lighten a long and difficult night they were having.

Also, as a command trainee, on another flight, complaining bitterly about the difference between the forecast and the actual we were facing, looked across to see the TC with a smile. After confirming that I a few thousand hours, his words, with a sigh, were`And you still believe in forecasts! I 'm not really interested in the quality of the forecast, I'm interested to see how you propose to get us out of this deepening hole!".

Sorry for droning on, but we should keep a certain sense of humour to illuminate the darker days. As someone told me`Aviation is the art of defying gravity, so there surely is a place for a little levity. I'm also recovering from the Valium I had to take on seeing the word `Tephigram' in an earlier post. Some wounds remain unhealed by time!

[B Fraser]

Fragman88 (what happened to the preceding 87 I wonder) Sorry for jangling your nerves with the word Tephigram, I promise not to mention theta -w's, mintra or drytra......doh, too late.:ok:


I'm on my hols in the sunny Baltic at the moment and the weather forescast on Estonia TV is followed immediately by the frigging horoscopes. I take back all I said about the UK telly forecasts. Never mind, it's 8/8 CAVOK and the local time is beer o'clock.

Ref the storm on October 15-16 1987, I was at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF or Early Closing Monday, Wednesday and Fridays as we called it) for a couple of months secondment and those dastardly Frogs were on strike comme toujours. There were no reports out of Biscay hence we didn't see it coming.

The "old lady" mentioned by Michael Fish who called in to warn of a hurricane was ... as rumour has it.... a senior BBC forecaster with the initials BG. He was referring to the remnants of a tropical storm that had the potential to undergo "explosive deepening". Perhaps BG had seen the horoscope on Scanditelly ?

[Captain Smithy]

Javelin

The way I see it, the problem with the MO "civvy" forecast is not that it is inaccurate, rather the problem is it is too simplified. Looking at the synoptic chart on the MO website gives me a much better picture of what the weather is likely to be like. Beeb forecast isn't too bad but still overly simplified. I remember when I was a lad when Messrs Fish, Kettley et al appeared on Telly with the synoptic charts, was useful, especially when I was studying Wx in Geography at high school :) Forecast on a Sunday evening at the end of Countryfile is still alright however.

Smithy

[BEagle]

When the BBC still used proper weather charts and chaps like Fish and Kettley, they were a 'must see'.

But meeja luvvies wanted something the ignorant unwashed could understand, so in came gushing weather-wenches and that stupid swooping camera thing.

Despite thousands of complaints, it's still rubbish. Although they did condescend to include wind velocity.....:hmm:

[gpn01]

Or use MetCheck ;) Yes, I know you can't use it professionally. Those of us needing accurate local forecasts for recreational purposes though, including planning flying with aircraft whose usable range of weather is very small, highly wind-direction dependent and needing little or no precipitation, generally find it remarkably accurate, up to several days in advance (once one factors in one's own understanding of the general synopsis and wider weather environment).


Funnily enough I've found the Metcheck forecast accuracy to have declined recently. I wonder if they've adopted a new model or data source?

[merlinxx]

Yup has gone down slightly, but then again the surfs up:ok: so maybe the folks are at the beach on lap tops (or board tops:E)

[Doctor Cruces]

I have to agree with the moaners, in general.

Although not now connected with aviation, other than my lifetime of experience within it and PPRuNe, the weather the general public gets is absolute rubbish.

One example a while ago, someone rang in to BBC Norwich during the Look East program and said it was snowing. Young lady weatherperson, on air, categorically assured caller it wasn't and indeed could not be snowing. Cue to stick head out of window. I either had the worst ever case of instant dandruff or it was snowing. Rule 1, look out of the window!

Just last week, there was I driving to work when the wx forcast at three mins to eight comes on the Today program. Nice man says words to the effect that East Anglia, especially Norfolk and Suffolk would be nice all day and, indeed, were currently experiencing sunny blue skies. That adequately explained my windscreen wipers needing to be used occassionally and wall to wall grey up above. I refer again to rule 1 (above).

And another thing, where's my barbecue summer?

As a rule, if I want to know what the weather over UK is going to be like, I google the jetstream forcast and see where it's going to be. Top edge south of me wx crap, bottom edge north of me, a good chance of fine wx. Generally works.

Maybe we should just go back to the old "Weather Stone" we had on the 23 Sqn Ops outside windowsill at MPA!!

Doc C

:ok:

[Captain Smithy]

The "Barbeque Summer" statement was, as usual, twisted by the British Media, who took it to mean that all Summer was going to be roasting hot and blazing sunshine for months on end. In reality the actual comment used by the Met was something along the lines of "65% odds on for a barbeque Summer", but the British Media being as they are, stunningly thick and ignorant, as always, took the bits of the quote they liked for their headlines and completely missed out the 65% bit, instead boldly stating in their headlines that the Met Bods were telling us that Summer 2009 for the UK was going to be resembling a Mediterranean Summer.

Then of course when it didn't happen the Radge Right-Wing journos (Mail, Express, Telegraph etc.) got angry and slated the Met. And of course there were the usual accusations from such nutters about "typical state wastage", tax being stolen from the Middle Classes to fund Lefty Loonyism being perpetrated by the Met Office, etc. Ad Nauseum :rolleyes:

Put simply, the Barbeque Summer thing was a product of the British Media. Although admittedly the Met perhaps could've worded it slightly less, er, enthusiastically.

Good point about the jetstream though Doc C. And Wx stones are handy for making METARs, but not TAFs ;)

Smithy

[wittonbob]

I see we can now communicate with the Met OFfice by *******!! (that should read t_w_i_t_t_e_r, but the automatic censor clicked in - written by Airbus I suspect) Perhaps more attention to core purpose than window dressing would be a good idea and a better use of funds!!

[Monom]

I fully agree with the thread title. Many years in a fairly Big Airline gave me a good feel for the wx, but one of the best thing ever was the 30 second glimpse of the BBC synoptic chart shown before the news. That told me what I wanted to know, and come the Mr Fish storm, I took 20 tons for my Shuttle flight - much to the indignation of the redcap. Glad I did! Then, when the met office moved to FRA and I went there one afternoon, the upper air temp was something like -72, I forget exactly, but it was on the limit of the aircraft's operating range. Therefore, I took exception to the forecast saying it would be -60 odd. I took the trouble to go in to the brand new multi million pound edifice where some sharp foreign gent told me the temperature was -60. "Ve sent up a wetter balloon over Paris at 6 o'clock zis morning and it said it was -60, so -60 it is." I thanked him for his time, but it does all seem to have slid down hill a bit since the days of station met men.

[FlexibleResponse]

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but....

I have been told that the problem was that the old "local" forecaster would quite often issue much better forecasts than his more political orientated master, the area forecaster who earned a lot more money. Under the rules of the Public Service, this was clearly an anathema and had to be expunged.

The remedy was to centralise all forecasts and dumb them down to such an extent that whatever was forecast would cover every eventuallity and at the same time could not be seen as completely "inept". To complete the illusion, no-one was allowed to issue a forecast that varied with his masters' voice.

Voila!

(PS. My most gracious thanks to the many metmen who have taught me the art and science of the subject and more importantly, have used every skill of their beings in providing me with forecasts that have enabled me to operate safely and successfully during a very long flying career!).

[Just wondering]

Flexible Response - couldn't agree more..... in an effort to not be wrong they are not getting it right.

[SIGMET nil]

Reading all the negative comments on this thread I just can thank heavens that in many years I've only met a few pilots and atc controllers with a "you-are-all-incompetent" approach towards modern aviation meteorologists. Infallibly it was impossible to do it right for those and I think that's the way it will stay.

Giving the forecaster a hard time you will achieve nothing.

To blame modern technology for allegedly poor forecasts is even more wrong. Todays cockpit and ground based weather information systems are such a wonderful resource to gain insight into complex weather patterns we dreamt of only 15 years ago.

I'm convinced that the proper way to go is to cooperate friendly with each other, to train with each other and to listen to each other to learn about the other party's perspective. That means also familiarization flights, sitting at the scope with atc staff and inviting aviation professionals into a MET office or at least meeting with them for discussion.

I'm grateful to the many pilots and atc staff in the past two decades who let me participate in their experience and therefore helped me, to do a better job. In most cases I was able to give them something back in return.

[SIGMET nil]

In case there's still someone on this thread interested in the original and quite interesting weather case presented by Just Wondering in his first post:

This is the sounding (http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=europe&TYPE=GIF%3ASKEWT&YEAR=2009&MONTH=08&FROM=2312&TO=2312&STNM=03918) taken at Castor Bay in Northern Ireland, about 160 km or 100 miles upstream from Glasgow. I think it was fairly representative also for Glasgow that day. 50 knots southwesterly winds were present at 3000 ft amsl and higher, separated from the surface layer only by a weak 1.5 K inversion. Wherever this inversion was erased or weakened, the upper wind would enhance local surface gusts, such as in Glasgow Bishopton, a few miles away from the airport, where gusts above 30 knots were recorded during the afternoon of the 23rd, if I recall correctly.

So the author of the first TAF might be forgiven for including winds that didn't materialize and the author of the second TAF might have been a bit daring to let the gusts out of his forecast. If some chance gust had destroyed a piece of equipment I wouldn't have wanted to hear the comments. Either way as a forecaster you'll be hanged.

You might want to check this map of 850 hpa/5000 ft/1500 m (http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/uamap?REGION=europe&OUTPUT=gif&TYPE=obs&TYPE=an&LEVEL=850&TIME=2009082312) to verify that Glasgow and Castor Bay near Belfast were comparably located with regard to the pressure field at noon that day.

My point being, both TAFs were justifyable and if seen without including the "bigger picture" could have led to a disappointing decision.

[SIGMET nil]

From my experienceI'd like to sketch a typical setup, how a pilot might be dissatisfied with MET:

Pilot: "I'll be landing at A tomorrow around sunrise, what do I have to expect ?"

MET: "weak easterly surface winds, a few clouds at 5000 ft amsl and a chance of shallow but dense fog patches that may at times cover parts of the runway system around sunrise. It will be gone in the first few hours of the day."

Pilot: "I can't work with that. I need a precise forecast."

MET : "Fog with 400 m RVR will come at 4 and be gone at 7 am local time."

Fog comes shallow at 2:30, grows 10 m high at 4 in the meadows along the runway, briefly rolls over the concrete with RVR 300 m, weakens to harmless state at 5 while a bank of cloud is hovering over the field and the last remaining fog patches finally dissipate at 6:30, one hour after sunrise.

Pilot lands at 5:30 and calls next day: "I knew you would be wrong, there was absolutely nothing, I could see the field from 30 miles out. You guys really need to get your act together."

(Exchange the fog for a thunderstorm scenario during the hot season )

My point being, with whatever meteorological sources you have, it's much better to evaluate and - if you like - discuss the risks and chances from a healthy mix of raw data and interpreted forecasts and then establish a strategy to cover those risks, rather than insisting on a precise and perfect weather forecast , which for obvious reasons is impossible.

[west lakes]

An intrusion but

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Devon | Weather computer is air polluter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8224956.stm)

a bit ironic!

From another industry - we have problems with inaccurate forecasts as well!

[Captain Smithy]

My point being, with whatever meteorological sources you have, it's much better to evaluate and - if you like - discuss the risks and chances from a healthy mix of raw data and interpreted forecasts and then establish a strategy to cover those risks, rather than insisting on a precise and perfect weather forecast , which for obvious reasons is impossible.

Probably the most sensible statement on this thread so far. :D

Thanks for your info SIGMET. You are swimming against the tide on this thread; your informed posts are helpful to us all I'm sure.

Any other Metmen, especially aviation Metmen, out there care to offer your thoughts?

Smithy

[Fast Eddy]

The "Barbeque Summer" statement was, as usual, twisted by the British Media, who took it to mean that all Summer was going to be roasting hot and blazing sunshine for months on end. In reality the actual comment used by the Met was something along the lines of "65% odds on for a barbeque Summer"


The strap line on the relevant Met Office press release actually said:


'The coming summer is 'odds on for a barbecue summer'


The trumpeting of a barbecue summer was not a product of the British media but rather that of the Met Office's press office and, daresay, some of the over-inflated egos that populate this particular organisation.

If they had been less keen to grab the headlines themselves and instead behaved in a manner more appropriate to a scientific organisation, perhaps the media backlash would have been less severe.

[Captain Smithy]

And that's all it was, a strap line.

All the lazy media did was latch onto the eye-catching title. Not reporting on the whole forecast, but just the line. Yes, the Met press office could be accused of sexing it up, there again that is their job after all. Its how it gets into the public domain in today's world. But all the barbie Summer was was an eye-catching title to draw people to the forecast, which most probably ignored anyway...

...How many of those moaning so much about the "Barbeque Summer" being "wrong" actually read the Summer forecast and understood the limitations behind it? :hmm:

The press release is hardly the fault of the forecasters, nor is it their fault when people don't read the forecast properly then moan about it being "wrong"... must be a British thing, moan about the weather then blame it on the forecaster because the Wx is cack... obviously too many bloody Daily Mail readers :ugh:

Smithy

[Fast Eddy]

How many of those moaning so much about the "Barbeque Summer" being "wrong" actually read the Summer forecast and understood the limitations behind it?


I don't recall the Met Office representatives being over-eager to discuss the limitations of the forecast when they were lapping up the media attention at the time of the press release.

Not sure how many Daily Mail readers there are in the Met Office itself but I'm sure they've a few folk who'd jump at the opportunity to appear on I'm A Celebrity.

[Mr Optimistic]

Whilst it is cheering to see professionals closing ranks against the layman, my earlier comments on my perception that the weather forecasts available to the public contain less factual information than previously (preventing an independent assessment of what might happen if the forecast assumptions are amiss), and are also less accurate (over a three day period) stand. I believe the 'old' method used to rely on senior metereologists poring over charts trying to match with historical data and the using judgement. Based on my own experience with very sophisticated physics codes and the intricacies of meshing and interpretation (followed invariably by re-runs), if reliance is now placed on cfd codes no further explanation of the reduced utility is necessary.

[steamchicken]

Strange nobody's posted any actual data. It seems completely pointless to argue on the basis of so-and-so's mum getting drenched - was it last year? - when the nice man said a 60 per cent chance of showers, which isn't *that* much. Bloody BBC, must be the politicians.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Here's a bit of data for my area (approximately Reading, Berks) for today, 29th August. I am particularly interested in the wind as I have a large radio tower in my garden.

Met Office forecast for Basingstoke (closest location) says wind 15mph gusting 28mph at 4pm
Met Check ditto says 7mph gusting (!) to 8mph for 4pm (No mention of 28mph)
BBC Weather site ditto says 14mph for 4pm (no mention of gusts)
Heathrow TAF suggests 10kts for next 24 hours

Just what does one believe?

[fmgc]

I find it interesting that we have been studying Met for hundreds of years and still struggle to get it right for more than a few days ahead (BTW I think that the Met Office does a great job).

Yet the environmentalists have been studying global warming, sorry I mean climate change, for what, 20 or 30 years but in details only for about 10 and reckon that we should believe their long term forecasts.

If we can't get the Met right for more than 5 days hence, how the hell can we put any faith in the long term forecasts for climate change?

[asyncio]

If we can't get the Met right for more than 5 days hence, how the hell can we put any faith in the long term forecasts for climate change?Because climate is 'easy' compared to weather.

In the same way as if I drop a leaf, Anyone can tell you it will fall to the ground.

With a bit more work you can predict how long on average it will take to hit the ground, and how fast.

But it's still virtually impossible to say exactly how that particular leaf will twist and turn as it floats to the ground.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

See my previous post...

2.20pm Met Office now going for gusts of 30mph. Other sites unchanged. Heathrow TAF still going in for 10kts.

A waste of space I feel...

[windytoo]

How long will it be, before every post on this thread comes accompanied by one of those stupid and pointless BBC weather warnings that they seem to start every weather forecast with?

[javelin]

I refer the honourable Gentlemen to my earlier post ......:ok:

[Captain Smithy]

How long will it be, before every post on this thread comes accompanied by one of those stupid and pointless BBC weather warnings that they seem to start every weather forecast with?

What, like "Severe warning issued; high chance of heavy showers of total bull****" :D

Discussion done I think, I'm outta here. :ugh:

Smithy out.

[manrow]

As a cynic I wouldn't be surprised if the barbecue summer forecast back in April was spin doctored by the New Labour government to encourage the credit-crunch affected Brits to holiday at home!

Prince of Darkness involved? :ugh:

[Foxy Loxy]

Wow, even I'm not that cynical! ;)

[Ancient Observer]

Yup, the Prince of Darkness and Evil/Cardinal of spin could well have suggested that. Just the sort of thing Mandy does.

[Whiskey Papa]

Heathrow Director - well, what was it? We're all waiting...

[Brookmans Park]

When I were a lad they could'nt even get yesterday's forecast right!

[robin]

if you listen to the Met Office, they can't do that now, either.

Remember, the forecast is always right, it was just the weather that was wrong.

[Metman]

A lot of good points, but also a lot of rubbish posted in here from people just looking to get a boot in somewhere. Well join the queue... :rolleyes:

Forecasting is an inexact science.

I'm with Callsign Metman in the belief that the loss of local forecasting and observing sites has led to a massive change in quality and / or perception of quality. You no longer have access to local knowledge or a local interpretation of the weather. I also personally believe that the loss of countrywide full real manual 24 hour observations / ascents has led to the input to the model being of reduced quality - and that may lead to rubbish in rubbish out. However thats a personal belief.

Are forecasts better than they used to be? Personally, I feel that they've got worse of late and that I could do a better job. However what forecast am I talking about?

Am I talking about a local weather briefing from a forecaster?
Am I looking at the Met Office generated actual and forecast pressure charts?
Am I talking about an aviation forecast?
Am I talking about a TAF?
Am I talking about the BBC TV forecast?
Am I talking about the BBC TV Countryfile forecast?
Am I talking about the BBC Web Site forecast?
Am I talking about the ITV forecast?
Am I talking about the newspaper forecast?
or the forecast off the Met Office website?
or their new "Invent" site?
or is it a forecast from some other organisation that you're attributing to the Met Office?
or a soundbite forecast tacked on to the end of the news?
or in the Telegraph?
or the Sun?
etc
etc
etc

Each one is different, of different quality, has had more (or less) time assigned to its production / presentation, contains different data, for different audiences, and I guarantee in many cases they're being mixed and matched in peoples minds - I know because it happens to me! I get my weather from the BBC Weather website - its generally rubbish, and the text rarely matches the pictures, and the pictures rarely match the animations! I moan about it! Yet I keep using it because its easily accessible. If I were to look at the Met Office pressure charts however, I can decide for myself how to interpret them, and generally I come out with a fairly good idea of what the weather will do - and generally its accurate! Yet both come from the same Met Office source data?

Don't forget, the vast majority of UK forecasts - whether Met Office or from other commercial organisations - are produced from Met Office data! So if you say one forecast is good and another bad, then at the end of the day, they're probably coming from the same source! Its all down to purpose, presentation and interpretation! If you think the websites are rubbish, then learn how to read and interpret the charts directly! Its not difficult, they're freely available and they're far more accurate! Once upon a time, the pressure charts were all that was displayed, and the public understood them (and understood how the weather worked). Now the country has dumbed down, they can't think for themselves and need someone stunningly cute but dim to read from a script and distract them while they look at pretty animated symbols that take up half the map yet somehow represent what the weather will be in their tiny little world!

If a forecaster says its going to be showery, and a specific location doesn't get a shower, but 5 miles down the road they had massive downpours, thunder and gusty winds on and off for 5 hours, was the forecast right? The person in the location that had no precipitation says it was dry so it was wrong, the person in the location who had the showers say that it rained all day and blew a gale, and there was even thunder, so they think it was wrong. Yet the forecast was absolutely spot on!

A fair proportion of the complaints talked about here are down to ignorance of how the weather works on the part of the end user, and an over-simplication of the forecast product being used / presented on the part of the forecasting organisation.

but you all know this, and you're professionals.... Put it in an aviation context. TAF says its going to be showery and gusty, possible CB, possible TS. You prepare for the weather, but it doesn't come to pass - it shoots off 10 miles in the other direction. Was the forecast wrong? Imagine you hadn't prepared, you didn't have diversion fuel, etc etc. and the storm hit? Thats the nature of the beast...

One thing I do wish they'd do is admit when they're wrong, and not try to gloss over it. Media forecasts these days are so full of waffle and fluff, its as if they are produced by Neu Arbeit spin doctors.

As for the Barbecue summer forecast, well that was an absolute own goal. From what I understand, a significant number of people within the Met Office thought the tag line was a mistake and the forecast didn't justify it, but they were over-ruled to get as much press coverage as possible. The actual contents of the forecast in hindsight weren't too bad apparently - its just everything was overshadowed by the strapline. I think / hope lessons will be learned! I also understand that the "seasonal" model is being significantly upgraded soon, but seasonal forecasting is still in its infancy, and simply shouldn't be used for anything of any importance - which is exactly how the Met Office "sell" it!

Oh, and they don't have a 60 foot waterfall, casino style foyer or sun terrace... They didn't get big bonuses, they don't get paid a fortune (they're well below the normal civil service equivalent pay scales thanks to their trading fund status), and on the whole they're some of the most dedicated people I know.

People really will believe everything they're told in the media... :}

[robin]

Metman

Couldn't agree more with your very detailed and (in my view) accurate summary.

When I was gliding, the weather forecast was a vital tool in deciding whether or not it was going to be worthwhile rigging or not. For that I used synoptics for the next day or so and would monitor the BBC when they did use them properly.

On the day itself, what I chose to do was what the weather would allow me to do and I would change the task to suit the conditions.

Now I am a hobby power-pilot I see that many of my fellow pilots have spent days planning a specific flight for lunch at a particular airfield or to meet a slot-time at the Sywell Rally, for example.

When the weather prevents this happening because of early fog not burning off, or a delay in the passage of a front by 4 hours, their day is wrecked and they go home disappointed fuming at the Met Office.

I would really like the BBC, or someone, to do a debrief of the weather to explain why the weather changed from that forecast. It would help in understanding the ebbs and flows of the weather (not climate) that we fly in.

But now because of the target-setting culture and KPIs no-one dare risk being in the wrong, and that is a shame.

[pax britanica]

Robin

i think the last line of your post hits the nail squalrely in the head.
What place do targets and KPIs have in the met office.Essentially NONE just because it is an INexact science. Just as it is in certain arts of the NHS, Education or the Police. (Mind you after the banking fiasco perhaps they shouldnt be used anywhere.

If one thing more than any other has crippled the UK in the last 20 years it is management techniques being pushed into organsiations who do not have profit as a goal (or shouldnt).

The met office has a simple obvious objective which is to try and produce an accurate foreacst of the weather, Everyone knows its hard to be right all the time but when it s someones objective to be right X% of the time human nature, greed, spin (or lies as its the same thing) all start to play a part and corrupt the process.

Its not an entirely New Labout thing -plenty of Thatcherites pushed the 'accountability' li(n)e in the public sector and I certainly do not rembember them as less decitful or dishonest than todays lot -but NL certainly share the blame for pushing some issues even further and failing to correct errors from the past.

Rant over, the suns come back out

[CaptW5]

Metman, that is absoluely spot on! (and so is Robin's last sentence):ok:

I have to add that it seems to be the same over here (Canada).

[robin]

I'm sitting at the computer looking out the window at solid low cloud and heavy drizzle

The TAF for an airfield less than 3 miles away is

050803Z 0509/0518 18005KT 9999 SCT035 BECMG 0509/0511 27010KT

The give-away is the wind direction which is bound to bring damp conditions but that is local knowledge.

On no forecast I have seen is there a sign of this rain/drizzle having been forecast. So anyone flight planning into the local airstrip will find conditions rather less to their taste than they expect.

[SIGMET nil]

I'm sitting at the computer looking out the window at solid low cloud and heavy drizzle

The TAF for an airfield less than 3 miles away is

050803Z 0509/0518 18005KT 9999 SCT035 BECMG 0509/0511 27010KTRobin, if you don't say, at what time you looked out of the window at which precise location and for what airfield the TAF is valid for, your statement is coming without the slightest amount of substance behind it.

Judging from the handwriting I'd say your TAF is from Exeter, so I've taken the liberty to add some Exeter METARs so your audience on this thread have a chance to make up their own opinion. (source: the wonderful ogimet.com)

SA 05/09/2009 10:50-> METAR EGTE 051050Z 28012KT 9999 VCSH FEW012 SCT015 BKN030 15/12 Q1024=

SA 05/09/2009 10:20-> METAR EGTE 051020Z 22003KT 9999 FEW012 BKN015 15/12 Q1024=

SA 05/09/2009 09:50-> METAR EGTE 050950Z 23006KT 9999 4000E -RADZ SCT010 BKN015 14/12 Q1023=

SA 05/09/2009 09:20-> METAR EGTE 050920Z 22006KT 9999 VCSH BKN025 14/11 Q1023=

SA 05/09/2009 08:50-> METAR EGTE 050850Z 22004KT 9999 VCSH BKN025 14/11 Q1023=

SA 05/09/2009 08:20-> METAR EGTE 050820Z 20005KT 160V240 9999 SCT030 14/11 Q1023=

SA 05/09/2009 07:50-> METAR EGTE 050750Z 18005KT 9999 FEW030 12/11 Q1023=

There was indeed a brief spell of drizzle which brushed parts of the airfield, but checking the Exeter webcam now, visibility seems just fine to me. If they had planted a TEMPO group in the TAF to get it right for those who can't be satisfied, they would have gotten flak from the other direction. This all is so ridiculous !

And please note how nicely the windgroup in the TAF worked out. Thus far. For those who need to keep their fishing rod straight.

Please allow me to remind all you TAF slayers out there :
Civilian TAFs are primarily designed for IFR guidance and nothing else. With regard to VFR flying the TAF contains only a YES/NO information for the type of airspace the TAF is intended to be used in.

There are threshold values of weather parameters which, if crossed to the better or worse, make an amendment or a subdivision in a TAF mandatory. These are defined by ICAO in Annex 3 and in some countries augmented by national legislation with regard to national airspace rules.

TAFs may be additional guidance for a VFR flight and are frequently (ab)used as such, but TAFs alone are by far not sufficient to get an accurate impression of weather conditions on an intended VFR flight. TAFs are not meant to be.

They are meant to be a concise planning aid for commercial aviation.

(edited for spelling)

[SIGMET nil]

With regard to Robin's TAF I just had a look at the nearby Camborne vertical sounding of today (sep 05 2009) 12 utc. (http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=europe&TYPE=GIF%3ASTUVE&YEAR=2009&MONTH=09&FROM=0512&TO=0512&STNM=03808)

It shows an unstable moist layer below 5000 ft amsl. For a normal rain shower, the moist unstable layer where dew point and temperature are equal would need to reach up at least to the -10 isotherm. To create snow, which can melt to rain.However, this, our moist unstable layer is entirely in the positive temperature region.

This is the typical setting for drizzle showers, especially with some warm advection going on at 5000 ft amsl, as today. The subtle lifting caused by this warm advection is right where its needed, level with the moist unstable layer. Also there is a little thermal lifting going on over land. Liquid drizzle droplets form in the moderately low cloud layer. Low level warm advection and low level clouds are the main ingredients. Due to the unstable stratification (cloud layer follows moist adiabates) the drizzle falls out like little showers.

At least that's my view of it. If somebody has a better one, please let me know. My textbooks and my instructors said, drizzle showers don't exist, but according to all my experience - even deep inland - they are a regular occurence.

[peter272]

As a relatively low time pilot I was interested in the comment that TAFs are meant for IFR traffic and not for VFR.

My instructors tell me always to use the Tafs along the route.

Metars should only be used with caution as they are only a snapshot.

But looking at Robins post and assuming it was Exeter it does look like the TAF underplayed the actuals and the later TAF showed a more realistic forecast matching the Metars.

An innocent question though. If VFR traffic is not being served by the TAFs then where do we get our information.

[SIGMET nil]

As a relatively low time pilot I was interested in the comment that TAFs are meant for IFR traffic and not for VFR.

My instructors tell me always to use the Tafs along the route.



Thanks, Peter, for your interest.

Using TAFs along the route is ok. You will catch a lot of the more significant weather. You just might not find out with them if visibility is 5 or 50 miles or ceiling 1600 or 4000 ft amsl and other likewise subtleties. Anything above 8000 m (in Germany 5000 m - national differences !) and 1500 ft agl is not really of interest in a TAF.

Low clouds (with or without drizzle) tend to linger preferrably on the upwind side of hillridges. So the same clouds the TAF discarded as irrelevant for flat airport terrain can be a much bigger nuisance on cross country VFR flights.

Like Robin already indicated, the low level wind (http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn0613.png) can be a great guidance to identify trouble zones, which will be normally the upwind sides of geographical obstacles, where you should put particular emphasis on getting accurate reports or other information (e.g. trustworthy webcams). Same goes for coastal areas - you need to know, if the wind will blow from the sea or from land.

So like Metman I would recommend to get familiar with weather charts and do some of your own forecast. Use various sources to catch errors.

The UK Met office surface charts might be a good starting point. Then you get a wealth of US model output also for the UK. The GFS model on which this is based, is quite reliable in Europe, but like everything it errs occasionally and you have to be alert to catch these events. A wonderful website - but in German - for such stuff is Wetterzentrale (http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsavneur.html). In the submenu fax/Bracknell you also find the MET Office surface charts. The GFS (/M-Europa) submenu also offers a lot. There are interfaces in English for this site in existence by third parties.

Drizzle you normally can't see on radar, but else RADAR (http://meteox.com/h.aspx?r=&jaar=-3&soort=loop1uur) is a wonderful means of getting information, what goes on between METARs and other reports.
Your remark about METARs being snapshots can't be emphasized highly enough in convective weather.

Try to get satellite pictures. There are wonderful resources available, such as Uni Bern (when working) (http://saturn.unibe.ch/rsbern/noaa/dw/realtime/) or Dundee Receiving Station (http://www.sat.dundee.ac.uk/).

To have a look in vertical soundings (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html) is highly advisable to get familiar with the airmass that is just moving into your area. Select continent, time and the diagram type of your choice.

All these sources are good for trip planning and creating a mental picture of the weather situation. They are not intended for operational flight planning, as they may be unreliable and false. However, knowing a little more is never wrong.

Finally I just had a look at the offerings of the subscription service from the UK MET office. Maybe you can have a closer look at it with somebody who has subscribed. The 3 day text outlooks and all the satellite and radar stuff are looking nice.

In Germany, a flight weather subscription service has been a great success since its introduction a long time ago, because it gave pilots a huge degree of independence in choosing their preferred weather resources.

Studying high resolution radar and high quality satellite pictures frequently with the surface analysis in mind will give you a lot of "local experience" countrywide in relatively short time. But that is only my opinion.

[Dit]

Personally I believe the Met Office don't do a bad job of forecasting, but you have to put some work in to ascertain a more relevant forecast, due to the almost anti-liabalist TAFs sometimes produced.

Firstly, I look at the radar pictures and wind direction actuals and forecasts to get the general wind direction and speed. Then cross check this with the METARs and TAFs for airports upwind of your destination and alternate/s. Obviously terrain and local factors affect how the weather progresses across your chosen overview, and this has to be learnt by gaining local knowledge through experience.

Takes a little time, effort and experience though.

[Just wondering]

BBC forecast last night said Northern Ireland would have a sunny morning - front not further North than Dublin by late morning, expecting it early evening in Glasgow (7-8pm) ........ 0745 GMT rain in Belfast - we reckon the weather will be in Glasgow by lunch time ! Let's see what happens.

[fireballxl5]

Its all very well copying a list of actual weather reports for a station to try to justify the forecast(TAF). What one needs to remember is that significant changes in the current weather conditions i.e special reports (if they are being done as required!) are not broadcast outside of the aerodrome and on bulletins. The fact that 4000m was experienced on one METAR does not mean that these conditions didnt materialize frequently or infrequently between routine observations!:ok:

[SIGMET nil]

The fact that 4000m was experienced on one METAR does not mean that these conditions didnt materialize frequently or infrequently between routine observations!Absolutely correct.

For the purpose of this thread I needed to accept this shortcoming. A lot of significant weather is hidden in SPECIs, which never leave the airport. METARs are only helpful if seen in context with the general weather situation.

For this reason I always check a lot of reports from the area in question, check a couple webcams I trust, have a look on RADAR, have a look on vertical soundings, maybe near-infrared satellite imagery or visible imagery... This way I try to get a feeling how frequent especially the minor nuisances may occur. Hundert percent certainty will never arrive.

I wanted to illustrate, that it is impossible to write the "perfect" TAF. Wether you perceive a TAF as helpful or not depends to some extent on your intentions and other personal variables.

And some TAFs just turn out to be not helpful at all. I'm honestly sorry about that.

[fireballxl5]

Could not agree more! For all the information at the disposal of the forecaster, the accuracy of the TAF depends first and foremost on an accurate METAR. Crap METAR in = Crap TAF out!! Simple really!:ok:Come on you guys!

[fivegreenlight]

Ok so we can talk all day about TAFs & Metars specifics but the fact remains the met office is getting it basically wrong too often.
eg;
As a broad picture yesterday they indicated a fine day in the south east for today. This morning, a whole 18 hrs later they now have rain showers spreading across the region later today !

No wonder most people ( general public ) seem to think the metoffice is doing a poor job compared to a few years ago.

nuf said:*

[Metman]

where did the broad picture forecast come from? Not commenting on your claim - might be quite accurate, but where did you get your information?

[fivegreenlight]

From the Metoffice !

Met Office: London & South East England: forecast weather (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/se/se_forecast_weather.html)

Of course they dont allow you to see what they were forecasting!

[Metman]

You are of course right! They don't display the old forecasts, and its a pain in the arse!

I personally don't trust the web forecasts - either Met Office or BBC. The text invariably contradicts the pictures, and the overview pictures invariably contradict any animations! Oh, and the BBC site is often different to the Met Office site, despite them both having the same source data. I don't know if there is any forecaster intervention into what goes on the website, or if it goes straight from the computer (which is my suspicion). I also think they're just too general. I admit that I tend to use the BBC weather site out of sheer laziness, and I've not been impressed with the accuracy for a long time.

One suggestion would be to try the new area of the website:

Met Office : Invent - New Weather Visualisation (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/invent/)

Not operational as such - still under trial, but certainly allows for more information to be displayed in hopefully a much more user friendly format.

However as I said before, the pressure charts do still seem to be accurate I think, which is why I've never really understood why other things can be so variable!

I do also think there are potential improvements on the way, but watch this space... I'm not convinced they have ever really completely got over the move from up here to the south west yet.

BUT if you are in a position to talk to a forecaster or read your own charts, I'd go for that any day

[fivegreenlight]

thanks for the link.
I had a suspicion that things deteriorated after the move southwest !

[TechnoFreak]

Just in case anyone is interested, weather forecasting by computer modelling is impossible. The reason for this is that the equations which describe how atmospheric components interact are “Chaos” or “Sensitive Dependence on initial conditions” equations.

Very roughly, the way the modelling works is that you plug all your current weather data in to the Equations, do the sums and the answer is a new set of weather data. This data is used as input to the next iteration. This is repeated until you have rolled forward to the required point in time.

Implications of Chaos

The behaviour of Chaos equations varies depending on the input data. For some input values the equations will be stable. That means that if you run it multiple times with slightly different starting data, the results will be roughly the same. Running the equations with a different set of data will result in answers which significantly diverge.
The only way round this is for the input data to be 100% accurate for an infinite number of points on the Earth’s surface. This is impossible.

This means that if you run the model several times with different data and the answers are similar, you can be confident of you forecast. If the results differ, all you know is that you don’t know.

In conclusion

If you look synoptic charts in the run up to the period you want to forecast and they are dominated by a single weather system, you can believe the forecast. If there are lots of different systems interacting, then you may as well revert to seaweed.

Regards

Techno Freak

[RAT 5]

"BBC forecast last night said Northern Ireland would have a sunny morning - front not further North than Dublin by late morning, expecting it early evening in Glasgow (7-8pm) "

Surely you are not saying, are you, that jo-public gets notice about the position and movement and speed of fronts, but that has all been removed from the sig wx. chart of us professionals. Regarding the confidence one could have in forecasts, seeing the position of fronts, and their likely direction of travel, gave me much relevant info, especially when on long-haul. However, given that a European average 4 sector day is landing back 11 hours after you've started, it is still relvant info, especially if TS/CB's are forecast. The question about their removal was asked months ago, but I never saw a definitive answer about it. Perhaps Metman & Techno Freak can help.

[fireballxl5]

Something to do with the fact that sig weather charts are generally high level charts and the depiction of fronts on charts shows their surface position which is not particularly relevant when you are cruising at FL350. Areas of Cb will ,of course, still be depicted. :ok:

[22 Degree Halo]

Be as well using t-w-i-t-t-e-r nowadays to dish out the forecasts:8

[RAT 5]

Fireball: We are discussing TAF's. The legal limits are for landing, not cruising. I want to know what to expect when I am on the approach and which direction to escape in if it is not good. Thus I want to know if there are fronts around, where they are moving, and how active they are. That's what I want and I can't get it. It has been removed, and I am the customer. The tail is wagging the dog. The info was removed with no consultation with the end user. The service has been diluted and I don't know why. Hence I'm pi#$ed off.

[robin]

The problem, as I see it, is that TAFs are limited to what one can expect at a destination. The local TAF for me is in a different weather zone to my home airfield.

Looking at Airmet is less than useful as it is full of vague detail.

A few weeks back I flew through a weather zone that was unforecast on the sites I was able to access on my mobile phone. I'd phoned various airfields along the route and all assured me that the TAFs and METARs agreed and that the flight would be safe-ish.

In fact in 'bandit country' between the TAFs was an area of weather that was nothing like the surrounding TAfs were showing.

At my point of departure and arrival all was fine, but for a 15 mile area in the cruise, the weather was marginal, to say the least.

Being a VFR-only pilot that was 'interesting'.....

[Metman]

Robin, I think you need to have a serious think about the information you are using, and what you are using it for. TAF = Terminal Area Forecast... therefore its the forecast for the airfield its written for - nowhere else. Clue is in the title... :} Its not an en-route forecast, so don't treat it as such, otherwise you're just asking for trouble! For your own safety and the safety of others, get a forecast or product thats designed for the job, and don't try to bodge it with local forecasts / observations that tell you nothing about the conditions in between!

I've been out of the frontline Met business for a while now, so I can't really say why fronts have been removed from charts and suchlike - I agree - it seems daft as they are significant features that don't just affect surface weather conditions! So why don't they appear on the SigWx??? What chart number / Metform product is it you're using? Own goal by the Met Office there I feel... It may be a technical issue with some of the newer systems they are using?

Have you tried feeding this back officially and directly to the Met Office?? At least you might get an official explanation and if there is enough feedback saying the same thing, portentially a resolution.

[red cuillen]

Low level wx charts still have fronts, its only the Sig WX charts that don't. The Met O and the other WAFC in USA produce sig wx weather for ICAO, therefore if ICAO say they don't want fronts, then that's why they were removed, along with cloud types causing the mod ice and turb, and cloud amounts on the euro chart (prehaps to make the charts easier to automate????). However I have heard a rumour - can't remember where from - that due to popular demand, fronts may be making a comeback sometime sooner or later. Perhaps someone from ICAO actually reads these posts and could comment?

[john clements]

remember back in the '70s at an airfield in germany, asked a forecaster
why the wx disagreed so often with the forecast. He showed me a huge
formula for the basic ground temp....if any of the inputs were wrong,
then so was the wx!
Later, in the '80s, another a/f, 'nother f/cster; gave me a crap deal for the next day....asked for his opinion....new ball game!
After Bracknell got it's NOO KOMPUTA with the latest 12 layer atmosphere..
3rd f/caster said "..it'll be alright if the sky knows it's layered"

so, you pays yer money.........;):ugh:

[cuthere]

As ever the complete lack of understanding of the complexity of meteorology is lost on the average Jo. Not fit for purpose? Fair enough, let's have an experiment whereby the Met Office doesn't bother issuing any forecasts for aviation. I wonder what would happen?

The CAA pay the Met O a big lump of £££ for their services and as such the CAA dictates TAF length/code/issue times etc etc. Tom Tom 91 is a case in point. "I don't know if I can go flying tomorrow as there's no TAF for Biggin Hill" Good to see you have a clue......not. Biggin shuts overnight, and hey, whaddya know, when an airfield is CLOSED as Biggin is from about 2100L, then there won't be a TAF valid for it. And there still won't be until the METARs for Biggin appear in the morning. If you want a 24 hour TAF for Biggin go cry to the CAA.

TAFs are not infallible, and the rules for their coding restrict how much can be put in there. Weather is more complex than any of us understand, and in my mind the boys and girls of the Met O do a good job. Heathrow Director.....your successors seem happy enough with the Met product. Short memories some people. It was only two or three years ago that the Met O correctly forecast dense, persistent freezing fog at EGLL, the week before Chrimbo. The first warnings were issued 48-72 hours in advance. Spot-on forecast (I know....blassed up a Chrimbo holiday for me!).

You lot should try using US TAFs......though I doubt many of you would be able to understand them........

[helimutt]

Some people should take the time out to look at accuracy of weather reporting. The MET office have an accuracy factor for fronts and cloudbase. Go take a look at what that is and you'll be surprised. Cloudbase can be something like 500' different to the forecast and the front position can be (IIRC) something like 90 miles out.

[Spotthedog]

How many GA pilots out there pay the additional aviation subcription to the Met office for the additional services?

I have subscribed for two years but now wonder about whether this is worth doing. Some of the subscription information eg. hourly IR and visible satellite pics are available from a different part of the Met office site - free of charge.

5 day pressure charts are available free from other providers.

But perhaps the most useful bits which are only available through subscription - visibility forecast charts, mesoscale charts, lightning charts - all come with a safety warning that they must not be used for flight planning purposes. So what's left.

I've scanned through this thread and apologies to you all if this point has already been made.

[FlexibleResponse]

How many GA pilots out there pay the additional aviation subcription to the Met office for the additional services?...But perhaps the most useful bits which are only available through subscription - visibility forecast charts, mesoscale charts, lightning charts - all come with a safety warning that they must not be used for flight planning purposes.

So we have a special paid subscription service for aviators much of which is not to be be used for flight planning purposes? So what pray-tell would any aviator be expected to do with this information? Add it to some doctoral thesis?

Arrrh! I just love the way the Brits play semantics with their language! They must have very dark, long, cold and boring winters to be so good at their indoor games. The public service bureaucrats almost turn themselves inside out to wield the utmost authority while maintaining the semblance of zero responsibility for the repercussions arising from any decisions they may accidentally take.

"Yes, Minister/Prime Minister" was a particular favourite of mine.

I should add that what the Brit bureaucrats have devised as a smart-ar$e-bully-boy game has been made into an art-form by their Australian colleagues.

[DADDY-OH!]

Well based on the quality of the Ladt Met Officers such as Jenny (Brize'), Vicky, (ASI) & Laura (RAF Valley) I would say "Hell!! Yes!!!".

I just wish they'd consider doing a "Calender Girls" calender......

...."Nurse!!!! The screens....QUICK!!!!!"
:ok:

[fireflybob]

They were forecasting winds in the Midlands last night of TEMPO 55kts from the South so loaded some extra fuel. It was no more than 29 kts when we landed and I don't think the wind was much above 35 kts all night!

How can they be so wrong?

[kick the tires]

If you leave out the TEMPO, what was the wind strength that was forecast?

[fireflybob]

TAF AMD EGNX 132032Z 1320/1418 16025G35KT 9999 -RA SCT012 BKN020
TEMPO 1320/1401 4000 RA BKN007
PROB40 TEMPO 1320/1411 18040G55KT
TEMPO 1408/1414 7000 SHRA
BECMG 1411/1414 24015G25KT=

OK I know PROB 40 means it might not happen so I suppose, technically, the forecast was correct!

SA 14/11/2009 00:20->

METAR EGNX 140020Z 16018KT 8000 RA BKN014 13/11 Q0985=

SA 13/11/2009 23:50->

METAR EGNX 132350Z 17021KT 9999 -RA BKN027 13/11 Q0986=

SA 13/11/2009 23:20->

METAR EGNX 132320Z 17024G35KT 9999 SCT027 14/10 Q0986=

SA 13/11/2009 22:50->

METAR EGNX 132250Z 17021KT 9999 -DZ FEW018 SCT027 BKN035
14/10 Q0987=

SA 13/11/2009 22:20->

METAR EGNX 132220Z 17025G36KT 9999 -DZ FEW018 SCT027 14/10
Q0987=

SA 13/11/2009 21:50->

METAR EGNX 132150Z 17025KT 9999 -DZ SCT019 BKN024 14/10 Q0988=

SA 13/11/2009 21:20->

METAR EGNX 132120Z 17024G36KT 9999 SCT019 BKN024 14/11 Q0988=

SA 13/11/2009 20:50->

METAR EGNX 132050Z 16025G36KT 9999 -RA FEW013 SCT019 BKN024
14/11 Q0989=

SA 13/11/2009 20:20->

METAR EGNX 132020Z 16026KT 9999 RA SCT013 BKN024 14/11 Q0988=

SA 13/11/2009 19:50->

METAR EGNX 131950Z 15022KT 9999 RA FEW005 SCT013 BKN024 13/11
Q0989=

SA 13/11/2009 19:20->

METAR EGNX 131920Z 14016KT 9999 RA FEW005 SCT013 BKN020 12/10
Q0990=

SA 13/11/2009 18:50->

METAR EGNX 131850Z 12016KT 9000 RA BKN005 10/09 Q0991=

SA 13/11/2009 18:20->

METAR EGNX 131820Z 11015KT 9000 RA SCT005 BKN038 10/09 Q0992=

[Weapons_Hot]

METAR KABC 121755Z AUTO 21016G24KT 180V240 1SM R11/P6000FT -RA BR BKN 015 OVC025 06/04 A2990 RMK A02 PK WND 20032/25 WSHFT 1715 VIS 3/4V1 1/2 VIS 3/4 RWY11 RAB07 CIG 013V017 CIG 017 RWY11 PRESFR SLP 125 P0003 6009 500640036 10066 21012 58033 TSNO $

Cuthere - A US TAF is simple to decode; a USAF issued TAF is a little tricky, particularly if you haven't experienced one before; but it is a detailed (as should be the case) METAR that can take a little time to decode (as above example).

If you want the DECODE parameters for the above METAR, PM me and I will send them to you.

[Just wondering]

As I said on the first post............ not fit for purpose

Glasgow forecast 25G35 and also prob tempos of 40 kts since Friday morning. They kept pushing the timings back but none of the BECMGs appeared - absolutely none. Variable 5kts would have covered most of the last 24 hours.

This was a UK Health and safety forecast but as you know if they can get it this wrong this way they can get it this wrong the other.

Intellicast - Local Weather Forecast, Reports and Maps (http://www.intellicast.com/Local/Observation.aspx)

[green granite]

This is a useful source of recent, current and forecast winds for the UK: Wind Map - Britain Observations (http://www.xcweather.co.uk/)

[ECAM_Actions]

...meanwhile, people expect them to have any idea about climate change? :ugh:

I've found the shipping forecast to be as reliable as anything, and far more accurate than anything on BBC TV. Please bring back the synoptic charts!!!!!

ECAM Actions.

[Rob1975]

Just Wondering/ECAM - I take no notice of the WX 'forecast'!

Just landed today @ LPL. Nice!

Are they getting more and more unreliable?! I know cyclic depressions like the one we had today, cannot be accurately predicted, ie, where they track, but is it me, or does technology march forward, but leaves behind the forecasting ability of the met office?!

It's now predicted by a bank of computers, unlike the old days when it was from direct observations from weather stations scattered about the UK and Azores, interpreted by forecasters!

All you get nowadays is 'a chance of showers/rain/snow' etc!

[fireflybob]

Rob1975, I think you've got it in one there!

I could say there is a PROB40 that the room I am sitting in will self destruct in the next hour - either way I could be correct!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

cavok9999.. First thing to do is to get your brain taken out.... then apply and you should make it.

[simufly]

That used to be a requirement for a CFS job!

[greggx101]

The super computer must have broken as the Met office website asks...

"Is it snowing in your area? Send your reports to us."

And the heavy snow that the South was forecast to get by mid afternoon today has not happened.

Oh well, keeps Tescos busy as every idiot goes panic buying.

[frangatang]

Didnt some tart from the met office win the apprentice some years ago? Obviously had nothing better to do..apart from getting the forecast arse about face.

[Mr Optimistic]

I thought the Met Office have actually been better than usual forecasting this snow: bit of a change from a few years back when they seemed to guess (or their computer guessed)..

[robin]

I think not. They forecast snow, but got the location of the falls badly wrong, as I found in the weeks before Christmas.

Their problem is that to justify their existence they are pushing the limits of accuracy beyond their ability to deliver.

It would be nice to see a bit of humility from them, but no. I heard a Metman try to explain that winter temperatures so far are (on average) just a little below their predicted levels.

As my dear old dad says, if you are in a deep hole, stop digging.....:=

[TheOldBloke]

This is my first post on this forum having been a lurker for well over 2 years and the weather thread really has prompted my response. I have been an aviator for over 30 years and a weather watcher for longer and I must say, that in my honest opinion, the Met Office IS no longer fit for purpose. I live just 13 miles (on Dartmoor) from the new Met Office and their Super Computer, and believe me, the level of forcasting is, at best, woeful. I look at Meteox24 every day (every 6 hours) and simply see things they do not, for quite simply, they look at a computer model, I look at the weather. They have lost the ability to see the bleedin' obvious..and I fear we have a Fast Finger Freddy as the chief forcaster...and we all know what that means! :=

[frangatang]

And whadya know, wake up to a light dusting of snow and not the original 6 inches. They however had changed their forecast at 6pm last night after the panic forecast at 5pm, so they change their forecasts like a whores drawers on payday..bound to get it right somewhere!

[Mr Optimistic]

OK, I stand corrected !

[and the winner is]

The level of unprofessionalism shown in many of these threads with regards to aviation meteorology is, frankly, astonishing. I consider the art of Met Bashing has, over the years, developed a significant flight safety hazard culture within the professional and private aviation community. This bad attitude shown by the aviation industry towards meteorology and weather forecasters starts on day 1; I've witnessed many experienced trainers cultivating this unsafe attitude from ab-initio students upwards, both in the civil and military environments. Is the Met Offce fit for purpose? I say whole-heartidly YES. Many of the complaints on this thread with regards to the perceived accuracy of forecasts, stem from the recent changes imposed on the Met Office by the CAA. It is the CAA that is reponsible for the provision of met forecasts and observations within the civil aviation community. I understand the Met Office has simply had to respond to changes inposed on them by CAA bean counters. Send your complants to the CAA.
We all know and understand that met can go wrong, a healthy awareness of that is essential but in my experience the Met Office forecasts (avaition or otherwise) are generally of a very high standard. The service the Met Office provides generally to the UK, in my opinion, is outstanding and is fantastic value to the CAA and general public alike.
Ignore the forecast and bash the met guys at your peril. Flying in accurately forecast out-of-limits weather has been the downfall of many aircrew over the years and will continue to be so into the future if this disgraceful attitude to met, amongst those that should no better, continues. The global meteorological community has played a very significant role in the improvement of flight safety over the years and the Met Office has been one of the key players in this. Heatrow Director, your brain comment is highly disprectful and reflects more about your professionalism than anything about the Met Office.

[Captain Smithy]

I've been critical of UKMO in the past (and still am in regards to their Global Warming propaganda), however they've got it spot on these past few weeks. Much of the criticism here is OTT and unfair.

General Forecast - widespread heavy snowfall, low temps.

Actuals - widespread heavy snowfall, low temps.

Only the British could find something to moan about that.

Smithy

[robin]

Flying in accurately forecast out-of-limits weather has been the downfall of many aircrew over the years and will continue to be so into the future if this disgraceful attitude to met, amongst those that should no better, continues.

I think the problem is more to do with cancelling flights on the basis of inaccurately forecast out-of-limits weather.

We had a succession of problems over the past year, where a dire forecast failed to turn up in reality. Being cautious and using Met Office data we cancelled planned flights, and then cursed the Met Office when the forecast weather failed to arrive.

On the other hand, just before Christmas I looked at the Met Office forecast and decided it was suitable for flight. Just after I wheeled the aircraft out, an unforecast snow event dumping 4" of snow on the airfield put the mockers on that.

The later TAF then forecast the snow.

On average I think the MO forecasts are OK, but on most days in the year, forecasting is relatively easy, the weather systems being stable for a number of days.

But it is the difficulty of producing accurate and local forecasts on the tricky days that screws their credibility.

[Boxkite Montgolfier]

I watched the Head of UK Met's performance on BBC's Newsnight earlier this week with increasing incredulity. This individual brushed aside criticism of his Department's long term forecasting ability and sought to justify his recent 25% increase in salary, on recent short term bad weather predictions.
I imagine most of us would be astonished to learn of the manpower and infrastructure requirements to fulfill these 'successes'. The burgeoning demands for weather forecasting in the media must represent deep satisfaction to the unemployment recruiters! Virtually every TV/Radio channel seems to need two Met predictions for every broadcast, regurgitating the ever fallible Met timing input

So do we have a service fit for purpose? A resounding unconvinced No from me.

The best forecasters are those whose lives and living are dependent upon
an accurate self prediction eg. farmers, fishermen, pilots and the like.
If we had doppler radars together with the reflective variety available on the internet we could 'sacrifice' the bloated Met Office quango that
continually fails to achieve!

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

I read a few pages back, someone complained cause the fog had showed up early. Fair enough.

I think some pilots take these things a bit too literally.

If I look at a TAF and see there's fog forecast at some point, I just think 'oh-oh, going to be foggy later'. I don't really bother about the times. I just think, going to get foggy-better take a bit of extra gas!

Same with a 'windy' TAF, just assume its going to happen when you're there and make whatever provision you need to.

It's pointless complaining that it got windy/ foggy/ CBey or Snowy at some unforecast moment. It's an inexact science.

I just use it as a good excuse to carry some extra gas.:hmm:

[tubby linton]

I complained on this forum about fog appearing at LGW that was not in the forecast back on page 1.The visibility was below cat 1 for a period but it burnt off. rapidly.Having flown out of the airport for a number of years I was not surprised that it had formed,but in these cost concious days ,the fact that it was not in the forecast meant that it then becomes difficult to justify carrying a bit extra fuel to cater for the situation where the fog does not disappear quickly and the delays start to accumulate.
In the old days when a human being with good local knowledge wrote the forecasts I believe the airfield forecasts were much better,but you cannot build this knowledge into a few silicon chips in Exeter.
I think there is far too much reliance on computer modelling in the Met Office.As the old saying goes-"Rubbish In=Rubbish Out".

[robin]

Its the unforecast changes that catch us out. I have been caught out by unexpected changes in weather over the years, despite keeping a constant watch on the wx through my iPhone and by phoning ahead.

Yes, it is an inexact science - I would say artform - but the MO don't do themselves any favours by pretending to be more accurate that the data and systems will allow and by their *rse-covering PROB30s.

IMHO they should employ more local forecasters and get out more to see how we use their forecasts. At the recent GA visit to Exeter it was clear they are a very introverted group who don't really engage well with the customer base - esp those who don't pay!!

[Bus429]

The Norwegian Met Office site referred to earlier has, in my experience, been more accurate than the UK Met Office when considering the north of England and Scotland.
The BBC forecast for Friday 8th January - from the Met Office - said the high for whole of the UK would be -10C. It was -5 on the drive through Inverness at 0815 that morning. I suspect the expertise exists at the UK Met Office but its managers want to sex up the weather; too many severe weather warnings in my opinion (crying wolf) and elements of the "Fish Factor".

[TheOldBloke]

Throughout this cold snap, down here in the South West (Exeter) the Met Office have been posting minimum temperatures for the area/region of -5. Despite me phoning the BBC (Radio Devon) and informing them that at 9.00pm we already had -8, the Met Office still report minimums 0f -5. In fact, the lowest recorded on my patch was -15. This -15 was beaten by a -18 a day later (as reported on BBC radio Devon and to their Met Man) and it took the Met Office 5 days for them to adjust the minimum temperature reports. Last night the Met forcast (again on the National and regional forcasts) said we would have on and off light snow flurries...well if this is what they call light snow flurries then God help us if it starts to snow proper! We have now had over an inch and the roads are now becoming blocked with the snow falling for well over 4 hours now. The Met office is, as the crow flies, 6 miles from where I'm typing this!!
:8

[Bus429]

BBC Weather currently (1500) showing Inverness at -12. It's not!

[Lucy Lastic]

Met Office have a weather warning out for us for severe ice - roads are bone-dry.

Will be interested to see how bad tomorrow's weather will be in reality

[fireflybob]

Live ten miles from ema - just checked the TAF, no mention of snow, look outside and it's snowing!

[ManofMan]

I see it this way, last week when the snow hit they advised us the day before of "flurries"..... overnight we got 8 inches of snow, followed the next night by -16oC with it only getting as high as -6oC the following day. The met office didnt see this coming and were left again with eggs on their face.

Fast forward to this weekend and they thought....here comes another front, best put out an extreme weather warning for the SE just incase...of course it didnt happen, thing is though nobody minds when it doesnt happen as no disruption has been caused.

On the subject of the BBC, I have not seen them get a weather forecast right on the internet for years...its a complete shambles and I dont know why they bother...this is the forecast for the next 4 days...lets see how correct it is.....




Mon Day weather Sleet
Max 2°C 36°F Min 0°C 32°F Easterly5mph 8km/h 91%
1021mB

Tue Day weather Grey Cloud with sleet forecast for 15:00
Max 1°C 34°F Min -1°C 30°F East South Easterly18mph 29km/h 78%
1005mB


Wed Day weather Light Snow
Max 2°C 36°F Min -1°C 30°F East South Easterly20mph 32km/h 92%
999mB


Thu Day weather Grey Cloud
Max 1°C 34°F Min -2°C 28°F South South Westerly12mph 19km/h 98%
1005mB

[IFollowRoads]

That BBC Interview referred to in post #157 is available YouTube - Daily-Politics-Met.mov (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmQ89L8kLlU)

Make your own opinion, it helped me maintain mine!

[robin]

I can't help thinking the Met Office will be really grateful for a period of settled weather, given the kicking they've been having recently.

Yesterday we were sent home early to miss the forecast snow only to find very heavy rain which melted the ice nicely.

20 miles away there was around 8" of snow (sorry, but I don't use centimetres). I did note though that in the forecast they did subtly change the snow forecast during the day to above 200m (talk in feet why don't you....:ugh:)

Today we had a strong warning (now reduced) of icy roads. Nah...
It spoke of a gradual thaw. Nah, it was bl**dy quick.

Something has gone horribly wrong with the forecasting ability of the MO and I contend it is the fact they don't look out the window, preferring to play with the computers.

[airborne_artist]

Benson/EGUB often experiences very cold overnight temps in winter with a slow-moving high pressure system, and yet there seems to be no short/long term memory of this in the Met Office. I have noticed when the high is barely moving for days that the min overnight temp forecast twelve hours ahead is 5C higher than that subsequently recorded, even when the night just gone was similarly cold.

Garbage in Garbage out springs to mind, but perhaps they are just stupid :ok:

[Low Flier]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01560/1701-MATT-ST-web_1560549a.jpg

[Bus429]

Sunday Times talks of the BBC looking for another provide (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6991064.ece)r

[aviate1138]

Based on these results they should do it now! :rolleyes:

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture22-2.jpg

[Krystal n chips]

Francis Wilson in this weeks ST states the smart money is on the development of a Scandinavian High ....with all that implies for an Easterly airflow and subsequently bitter February after this coming mild weekend

Nothing from the Met. Office however......as yet.

It will be interesting to see what transpires given Mr Wilson's little piece in the ST every weekend is invariably quite accurate.

[robin]

They've done it again.

The weekend was supposed to have been one of damaging gales and floods. It wasn't where I am, as the storm tracked further south. We saw it happening a day before it was reflected on the weather warning but the warnings weren't changed until after it had happened.

:ugh::ugh:

[farefield]

Spectacular sunsets,they said. Although it has been cloudless in the south of England for the past few days there has been nothing.