Rules for interpreting met info - pre flight

[skyhigher]

Does anyone have a quick reference sheet for the application of met info for pre flight planning purposes. Or an easy to remember quick set of rules!
EASA rules I should add.

Thanks in advance.

:ok:

[FlightPathOBN]

this just aint right.....:sad:

[Blinkz]

+TSGR = Bad
CAVOK = Good

:E

[Check Airman]

Your question is a bit vague. You're asking how to make a go / no-go choice based on wx?

[A319-100]

"application of aerodrome forecasts" table. Shoul be in your ops manual. Otherwise google should be your friend!

[bookworm]

It's meant to be GM1-CAT.OP.AH.180 Selection of aerodromes - aeroplanes APPLICATION OF AERODROME FORECASTS which you'll find on page 210 of the CRD b.3 (http://easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/crd/part-ops/CRD%20b.3%20-%20Resulting%20text%20of%20Part-CAT%20(A,H)-corrigendum-1.pdf) document that was published as part of the CRD. However, I believe that contains some errors if it's meant to be consistent with the old JAR-OPS1 IEM.

The AMC/GM will presumably be finalised as a Decision only when the Ops regulation is finally published.

[Earl_Grey]

OUR Manual says,

Precision Appr. RVR or Visibility counts
Non.Prec : RVR / VIS AND Ceiling

BECMG AT :
Deterioration: Applicable for the whole time
Improvement : applicable
-steady windspeed must be within limits. Gusts may be disregarded.

BECMG FROM - TO:
Deterioration: Applicable from start.
Improvement: Applicable from the end

TEMPO FROM/TO AT PROB30/40:

Deterioration:
Transient Cond. (shower): Not applicable. Wind may be disregarded.
Persistent cond. (haze, fog): applicable.

Improvement:
Should be disregarded:

PROP TEMPO:

Deter: Should be disregarded.
Impr: may be disregarded.

In any Case: Gust may be disregarded.
BECMG: BAD FROM THE START.
GOOD FROM THE END.

TEMPO: LONG LASTING = BAD
SHORT TIME = NOT THAT BAD.

PROP TEMPO: I don't care.

greetings

[Willit Run]

Whens the last time you didnt go because of weather???

[skyhigher]

Perhaps I should have been more specific, It is indeed an application of aerodrome forecast table I was looking for.

Thanks to those who posted helpful comments.

[Depone]

I hate all these 'rules' for interpretation. What happened to common sense!?

:ugh:

[Denti]

Well, common sense would be nice, but commercial greed in a mix with desperate pilots leads to disaster, and that is the norm nowadays.

[Earl_Grey]

hey,

there are other things to be desperate about.
Some guidelines and Procedures don't harm you. Believe or not sometimes they are your friend.

[Max Angle]

Whens the last time you didnt go because of weather??? The last time that the destination and all the available alternates were TAFing below minimums for our arrival time, not actually that unusual on parts of our our route network in winter.

Quite agree with the comment about rules over common sense, it is only a prediction of what will happen and those predictions are often wrong. Whatever the rules might say about which bit of a forecast you can disregard you had better be careful heading for an area where the weather is filthy, and the forecasting not that great.

[darkbarly]

Until the EASA OPS AMC published next year, and until the derogations expire in your particular EU state, try this;

JAR OPS 1 sub part D OPS AMC 1.297

[Denti]

JAR OPS isn't applicable since 2008, EU OPS replaced it back then. Should have it's own AMC, usually as an appendix to the relevant OPS number. EU OPS 1.297 is still correct though and contains tables and explanations which planning minima have to be used.