ARFOR & SIGMET interpretation

[Sexual Chocolate]

Gentlemen, any of you able to help with a couple of obscure tech questions? I've scoured Jeppesen & AIP for an answer but can't seem to find.

SIGMET from a couple of days ago stated YMMM MELBOURNE FIR SEV TURB FCST WI AREA 70 BELOW A080 STNR NC. Anyone know what STNR NC means?

Also with an ARFOR from same day:

AREA22 (22)
AREA QNH 01/04
AREA 22: 1023

AREA FORECAST 132300 TO 141100 AREA 22

Am I right in saying the QNH value of 1023 is valid between 01 - 04? Isn't this a little strange given the forecast runs from 23 - 11? Why don't they don't provide QNH values for the entire forecast period?

Thanks to any tech genius in advance :ok:

SC

[Fondair]

QNH's are only ever given for the next 3 hours.

[kookabat]

STNR = 'stationary'. NC = 'no change'.

[wishiwasupthere]

JEPPS MET AU-3 Definitions and Abbreviations

STNR - Stationary
NC - No Change

[PLovett]

Yeah, you should see the mountain wave formations over the past few days. :uhoh:

[Dora-9]

Without opening a can of worms, why aren't they in plain language anyway?

[Aussie Bob]

Without opening a can of worms, why aren't they in plain language anyway?


Good question, this is the 21st century and we are still using language from the days of the telegraph, please explain airservices.

[framer]

Is it because there would be more chance for confusion globally? ie pilots with english as a second language? If that is the case they could always issue it both ways I guess.

[SOPS]

Going into the USA yesterday the ATIS had the ILS "OTS"...which is, I found out, after a bit of head scratching, was "Out of Service"...????

[eocvictim]

Without opening a can of worms, why aren't they in plain language anyway? this has been covered several times, it's much easier to skim read 15 pages of abbreviations than read 30 of plain English. For those who don't require that much weather there are programs that can translate it for you.

[mustafagander]

There is an iPhone app, AeroWeather, that will give you the choice of both.

It can't be very costly or a cheapskate like me wouldn't have it!!!

[Avgas172]

There is an iPhone app, AeroWeather, that will give you the choice of both.



seriously, gotta love them iphone apps, pilot wiz is another one that saves some of my grey matter...:D

[MetGirl]

Just to clarify further, the STNR refers to the movement of the area. Another example would be MOV N 10KT. The NC refers to the intensity of the phenomenon. Other options there would be INTSF (intensifying) or WKN (weakening). Hope that helps.

[Seagull V]

Why do we need to have an "app" to convert met messages. How hard can it be for Aircircuses and BOM to provide an option? See how Nav Canada does it.
Seems we have some kind of perverse snobbery in Oz Aviation that makes us always make everything as hard as possible. "We can't make flying easy or the common people would be doing it."
The safety of very many private and recreational pilots, plus a few not so current "White Knights" would be improved if the option was available. Whats more the "Pros" would never have to look at it.

[LeadSled]

Seagull V et al,

The Civil Aviation Act 1988 requires us to comply with ICAO SARPs, that is exactly what BOM does.

It's not all that hard ---- who remembers when it was all numerical code groups, and we had to translate each number group --- what we have is the "plain language" successor.

Airservices (or BOM) are not going to spend one brass razzo more than they have to -- without political direction. The relative handful of pilots who have a problem with the current system just don't constitute a political force, nor is there an overwhelming public perception of a "safety" problem about this issue.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Be wary of the legality of using "translation" apps --- are the results certified to, say, comply with CAR 233 ?? --- no they are not!! Use of these apps is very much caveat emptor.

[Howard Hughes]

Seems we have some kind of perverse snobbery in Oz Aviation that makes us always make everything as hard as possible.
Seriously, it ain't that hard!:ok:

[Avgas172]

Why do we need to have an "app" to convert met messages. How hard can it be for Aircircuses and BOM to provide an option? See how Nav Canada does it.
Seems we have some kind of perverse snobbery in Oz Aviation that makes us always make everything as hard as possible. "We can't make flying easy or the common people would be doing it."
The safety of very many private and recreational pilots, plus a few not so current "White Knights" would be improved if the option was available. Whats more the "Pros" would never have to look at it.



Tend to agree, although I have no problemo reading them, had to decipher a tropical low in Cairns a few years ago in Bob Taits CPL Met Course and that made an interesting bit of fun. Must look one up to refresh me.
cheers
A172

[Rogan82]

I have had to decipher some obscure TAF's from abroad and Australia does not have it that bad. The decode is presented nicely in AIP. The difference is that the pro's don't need to remember it all because they know where to look for the answers! Not the lazy option of having it all presented to you and only reading AIP once... for your exam...criticism on this post optional.

[Cirronimbus]

I think there is a lot to be said for retaining and using standard phrases. Just imagine the variety of interpretations you could end up with if forecasters used 'plain' language on ARFORS and other met info. Read some of the quotes in newspaper articles and you might get an idea of what I mean. Not all forecasters have a perfect understanding of the English language; many speak it as a second language. Same thing with aircrew. Sticking to standard phrases and codes removes any doubt. If learning and deciphering those standard phrases and codes (looking it up in textbooks) is too hard for you, flying probably isn't for you.

[LeadSled]

Cirronimbus,

A very important point ---- required would be a set of standard plain language phrases to interpret a set of phrases that are already aviation plain (or is that plane) language --- to prevent creating any more inadvertent criminals.

Just learn/have a reference handy to read the ICAO already plain language met.

Don't complicate in the pursuit of simplification ---- a bad Australian habit!!

Tootle pip!!

[Capt Casper]

I think there are two separate issues here. One is meeting the requirements which your licence indicates you are capable of. The second is understanding fully, the information you have aquired by meeting the "requirements".
A subtle disclaimer on the BOM aviation page advises you that to meet regulatory requirements you MUST use the MET information from Airservices.
Now my view is that the Airservices output is compliant, but very difficult to interpret accurately without consulting various other documents including codes maps and charts. This is particularly the case with SIGMETs where the areas are usually described by co-ordinates.
A recent example was the SIGMETs relationg to the Indoneasian volcanic ash cloud.
Airservices advice ran to pages of numbers which no one could keep in their head to interpret. BOM had a graphic which could easily be interpeted as "does it affect me?" Now I believe I met the requirements, as I had read the SIGMET but I understood it by using the BOM website.
This prompted me to email BOM thanking them for the graphic and asking if graphics could be produced for SIGMETs.
Their response follows:-
"Thank you for your email and request. We currently have a project underway which I believe will meet your needs. The graphic will display the horizontal extent of all current SIGMETs. For each SIGMET, the graphic will also display the type, severity, vertical extents, movement and validity times.

We plan to have this feature operational and available on our webpage Q4 of this calendar year."

[Avgas172]

I have had to decipher some obscure TAF's from abroad and Australia does not have it that bad. The decode is presented nicely in AIP. The difference is that the pro's don't need to remember it all because they know where to look for the answers! Not the lazy option of having it all presented to you and only reading AIP once... for your exam...criticism on this post optional.

consider it criticised .... (for no particular reason) :E

[By George]

I've been flying all my working life and I am all for making it easier, why not? There is always some 'Biro-Muncher' with some excuse to resist change, waffling on about ICAO reg something or other. We should lead, not follow. The weather is not our only pre-flight consideration and everthing is time critical these days. Its dangerous to misunderstand abbreviations. How about REFZRA, DRSN etc. Sure it's no big deal looking it up, but again it soaks up time. Why not just say,"It's bloody snowing". How hard is that?

[Avgas172]

..... or By George it's bloody snowing!

[eocvictim]

I think there are two separate issues here. One is meeting the requirements which your licence indicates you are capable of. The second is understanding fully, the information you have aquired by meeting the "requirements".
A subtle disclaimer on the BOM aviation page advises you that to meet regulatory requirements you MUST use the MET information from Airservices.
Now my view is that the Airservices output is compliant, but very difficult to interpret accurately without consulting various other documents including codes maps and charts. This is particularly the case with SIGMETs where the areas are usually described by co-ordinates.
A recent example was the SIGMETs relationg to the Indoneasian volcanic ash cloud.
Airservices advice ran to pages of numbers which no one could keep in their head to interpret. BOM had a graphic which could easily be interpeted as "does it affect me?" Now I believe I met the requirements, as I had read the SIGMET but I understood it by using the BOM website.
This prompted me to email BOM thanking them for the graphic and asking if graphics could be produced for SIGMETs.
Their response follows:-
"Thank you for your email and request. We currently have a project underway which I believe will meet your needs. The graphic will display the horizontal extent of all current SIGMETs. For each SIGMET, the graphic will also display the type, severity, vertical extents, movement and validity times.

We plan to have this feature operational and available on our webpage Q4 of this calendar year."I was thinking about this post wondering where I'd seen this depicted. This is all included in the xm wx package. Flipping through the glass cockpit manual revealed how good the yanks get it, no guessing your way through a cold front. Essentially everything available from wunderground.com right there on your mfd. Sigmet areas, NEXRAD, satellite, winds at any level, storm tops, lightning, CAT, airmet, echo tops. Tgr question is does anyone know if this (even in a limited form) will become available in aus?