Understanding this TAF

[brad_nz90]

Can someone please help me with this TAF, Where it says BECMG 2401/2402 and in that sentence after overcast 2000feet it says "620203" what does that mean?


NZPG TAF 2315/2415 (2404/2504NZDT) 03005KT 9999 SCT030 SCT100 BKN150 QNH2888INS GRID20005KT
BECMG 2319/2321 (2408/2410) 15008KT 9999 SCT025 BKN080 BKN150 QNH2883INS GRID32008KT
BECMG 2323/2324 (2412/2413) 16016KT 9999 BKN025 BKN040 BKN080 BKN150 QNH2880INS GRID33016KT
BECMG 2401/2402 (2414/2415) 17019KT 0800 SN BLSN OVC020 620203 QNH2882INS GRID34019KT
BECMG 2404/2406 (2417/2419) 16020KT 9999 VCSN OVC015 620152 QNH2883INS GRID33020KT
TEMPO 2409/2411 (2422/2424) 1600 -SN OVC010

[donpizmeov]

Icing
AFW Icing "6 Group" Code Figure Type of Icing
0 No Icing
1 Light Icing (mixed)
2 Light Icing in cloud (RIME)
3 Light Icing in precipitation (clear)
4 Moderate Icing (mixed)
5 Moderate Icing in cloud (Rime)
6 Moderate Icing in precipitation (clear)
7 Severe Icing (mixed)
8 Severe Icing in cloud (Rime)
9 Severe Icing in precipitation (clear)

So the "62" means icing (6) is forecast, that being light icing in cloud in the form of rime (2). So 620203 means light rime in clouds starting at 2,000 AGL, 3,000 feet thick, because the "020" refers to height AGL in hundreds of feet, while the "3" is the thickness in thousands.

[Chimbu chuckles]

You might find this a useful download to stick in your Ipad.

http://www.theflightstuff.com/AFPAM%20METAR%20and%20TAF%20codes.pdf

[Defenestrator]

You could also request your weather through this website and select 'translated'. It'll decipher it for you (to a point). Works for global locations.

ADDS - METARs (http://aviationweather.gov/adds/metars/)

D.

[172driver]

Interesting. One thing in this TAF I have never seen before is the GRID group. This obviously refers to wind, but which wind? What grid (if this isn't an acronym) is referenced here? Curious....

[donpizmeov]

Haven't been down there for almost two decades (braved it before GPS made it easy!!), but McMurdo is at south of 77 degrees I think. Grid north is used for wind/runway direction etc. You may need a fuel bladder or two added to get the C172 there.

the Don

[compressor stall]

Yep, runway direction and wind all in grid north. Not really necessary at mcmurdo heading (true) northwards, but essential heading (true) southwards....

What u doing in Mactown brad?

[172driver]

Ta, guys, got it now (hadn't realized the identifier was for McMurdo). Been down that way (on the Oz side of things) years ago, albeit now it a 172 :eek:

[Seagull V]

DEFENESTRATOR


In a previous thread PPruners warned me that translated weather would be bad for my soul and I would never be a real pilot if I practiced that.



But now you have lead me astray by showing me how to get my fix of translated weather.



Shame on you. Say six Hail Marys and put $20 in the PPrune poor box.



Why can’t AsA/BOM provide the same service in Oz? Surely it’s harmless if its consensual and done in private.

[VH-XXX]

Wasn't the format originally created to be simple and small in terms of bytes so it could be transmitted to the flight computers in airliners via HF so it could be decoded on there?

So they use decoders, therefore in essence, why can't we?

Plain English forecasts are long overdue. Not so much that people can't interpret them and are lazy, but there would be less mistakes made.

[172driver]

Actually disagree here. You can get the gist of a coded TAF in a glance, not so in a full-English transcription. Try it. Go to one of the 'plain language METAR/TAF' sites and try to read through all the stuff. Much quicker in code.

Of course also makes you a member of some secret society who can decipher the stuff! :E

[Defenestrator]

To be honest I've been using that website for years and only recently discovered the 'translated' tab.

Thanks for the laugh Seagull.

D.

[compressor stall]

It would take me longer to read a translated TAF than a coded one. :8

[brad_nz90]

@donpizmeov, Thanks, That helps a lot

@Compressor Stall, I am working with the National Guard issuing all the spare parts for the LC-130's

[compressor stall]

That'll keep you busy ;)

[drpixie]

XXX,

You might find that coded met stuff dates to telex (or even telegram) days - nice compact reports that can be copied (or printed) and carried easily.

I'll bite - I like coded forecasts. They're compact, precise and worth the practice to read them easily.

Anyway, it's possible to carry TAFs for an entire area - imagine flicking through "translated" text for area 30, looking for somewhere with decent weather!

[Cirronimbus]

"Plain English forecasts are long overdue. Not so much that people can't interpret them and are lazy, but there would be less mistakes made."

I would not bet on that. Don't forget that there are many people out there (forecasters and users) who speak English as a second language. It would be very easy to make mistakes using plain language. Look how much difficulty people have just interpreting daily forecasts that are issued in plain language.

Using standard phrases and codes removes any ambiguity. There are plenty of resources to use to decode messages and they are easy to find and use. Imagine the 'fun' you would have if you had to ring the forecasters to verify that your interpretation of their plain language message, was actually correct!

[superdimona]

So why not have a choice: Plain english or coded?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if we currently had a choice, and ASA decided to scrap the plain English option, there would be widespread outrage. The only reason we're stuck with the current system is inertia and the "I had to learn it, so do you" mentality.

[Cirronimbus]

I don't think it is a matter of being "stuck" with the present system. It exists because it works and no one has come up with a better option, YET.

Plain language might be a better option but I think you would need to demonstrate that (just like anyone else would do if they propose a different method of doing anything else). The current coded format is easy enough to decipher and there are plenty of resources to assist with this. There should be no ambiguity; all the codes are documented and they are the only things used to describe the conditions.

Trying to use both codes and plain language systems together just so people could have a choice, will almost certainly lead to confusion. Don't forget, there are people out there who use English as their second language. If someone prangs a plane because of a weather related issue, whose interpretation of the forecast will stand up in court?

"Plain" language might work if you could come up with a system of 'plain' language phrases to replace the code groups. There is a lot to be said for sticking to standard phrases when exchanging information. With 'standards' in place, everyone should be on the same page. That is how confusion is avoided.

[glekichi]

Perhaps we could get the people that write our rules and the AIP to write the plain English weather decode. I'm sure noone would get confused, ever! :hmm:

[superdimona]

A while back I went to an Airservices Australia pilot information night. Right at the very beginning they said something like "We know you guys are going to ask about plain-english weather, it's the single biggest request we get, hopefully when we upgrade our system you will get it then".

Plain language might be a better option but I think you would need to demonstrate that (just like anyone else would do if they propose a different method of doing anything else).OK, how about this: Offering a more user-friendly format (perhaps a combination of tables and plain english) as well as the traditional codes let's people choose their preferred option. If you are not comfortable in English, stick with the traditional system and nothing changes. If you are a seasoned vet and know the current system like the back of your hand, stick with it.

If you are a student pilot brought up in the iphone era, "weekend warrior", or just think that traditional TAFs etc belong in the telegraph era, you'd probably prefer the plain english option. I'm willing to bet there are a ton of people who find the current system "too hard" and use weather.com.au or something. At least these people would then look at actual aviation weather information.

As for a demonstration, I'd be all for a trial where both formats are included. I'd be amazed if the simplfied format isn't wildly popular.

The current coded format is easy enough to decipher and there are plenty of resources to assist with this. There should be no ambiguity; all the codes are documented and they are the only things used to describe the conditions.Multiple people have felt the need to write computer programs to translate the codes into English. I rest my case.

[Cirronimbus]

"Multiple people have felt the need to write computer programs to translate the codes into English. I rest my case."

(Just because someone feels a need to do something does not necessarily mean it is the right thing to do. Somebody burnt an Australian flag on Australia Day........)

Any of the program writing people from the Bureau? I'm sure BoM are happier to type "TSRA" instead of "thunderstorm with rain" (for example). However, if the customers want that product, then the supplier should be able to provide it if they think there is some advantage in doing so. Shorter, coded messages are easier to prepare and send than long winded, time consuming, plain language ones. Perhaps they can create plain language versions already deciphered from the coded stuff they usually prepare, and send those instead?

I'm not fussed either way, but I don't think running both coded and plain language versions together is going to be a good idea. One or the other is the way to go and make one version the standard. Leaving things up to personal interpretation, instead of keeping everyone on the same page, will make it easier for confusion to take its toll. In the end, it is confusion that we should all be trying to avoid.

[compressor stall]

For those people advocating plain text weather, how do you copy down the ATIS or a SPECI from ATC when flying? How do you know your FO's abbreviations on the TOLD card?

there are a ton of people who find the current system "too hard"

I can't believe I've read that. It's not like its that hard to learn. What else in your flying do you find too hard? Calculating Takeoff distances? Density Altitudes? Radio Calls? Circuit procedures? :ugh:
Get over it and learn it FFS.:mad:
[/rant]

[superdimona]

I don't like the idea of removing TAFs etc completely. There are big advantages in having standards, even if the standards belong in the 1930s. I guess I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is having 2 different formats. As long as the same information is presented in both, how can there be interpretation problems?

By "Plain English" I don't mean ambiguous "it should be fairly sunny today" but presenting the same information as present using standardized terms that are intuitive for an English speaker, perhaps in a table format.

What else in your flying do you find too hard? Calculating Takeoff distances? Density Altitudes? Radio Calls? Circuit procedures? :ugh:
Get over it and learn it FFS

I didn't say I find it "too hard" (although I do think it sucks, and I'll bet there are tons of "old boys" who fly 10 hours a year who don't bother). It's just something that is more difficult then it needs to be. Radio calls and Circuit procedures are required for Safety reasons, and I don't see how they can be simplified much furthur, whereas there is room to make weather simpler.

If there was a requirement to do a handstand as part of your take-off checks, and it had "always been that way" I bet some people would oppose removing that as a requirement was "handstands are easy to do, harden up".