The BoM has chosen to replace the human weather observer with Automated Weather Systems (AWS). These AWS can provide a greater quantity of less precise or reliable information at a cheaper cost than the human observer. The poor forecaster sitting in an office 100s of km away does not know how reliable the info is and basing a forecast on it is largely guesswork. So who pays if the TAF is wrong? Not the forecaster is it? I can understand BoM (and ASA) reducing their liabilities by reducing TAF services but perhaps this is just the start of a campaign to apply for increased funding? The aviation industry needs the service, BoM (ASA) are willing to supply it but claim they don’t have the resources. So, when the funding is provided, they will install more automated (unreliable) junk and the cycle continues. If was up to me, I’d prefer to see humans on site verify the automated output so that the forecaster could be more certain of the reliability of the info and go ahead and provide the TAF. Many airports have Aerodrome Reporting Officers on duty, why not train them up to be co-operative weather observers? The co-op observers of days gone by did a good job and at least if anyone was unsure of the conditions, you could ring them and ask. You can’t do that with an automated sensor!