TAF format changes

[Radix-Lecti]

All in favour say "aye".

Just reading through the new crash comic and the debate about "plain english" met forecasts seem to be getting some legs.

Personaly, I would very much like to see the BoM be forced to do this for the sake of clarity and, IMHO, for the sake of operational reality.

I can't count the ammount of times they have got it wrong and manage to hide behind a set of rules which seem to leave them absolutly bullet proof. It's not the minor items like the temp being a couple of degrees out or the wind 30 - 40 degrees off or a bit more cloud than forecast. It's having to carry 60 holding in virtual CAVOK, or worse, turning up and finding that a full on IAL is required. I feel that if they were forced out from behind their carefully constructed screen, Met info might actually become an effective tool again.

Great chance to exercise the new found pilot unity, much mentioned here. If we can stick together on an issue that helps all, perhaps we can all get the bigger picture sorted.

Just my two bob's worth.

[AerocatS2A]

How will a plain english forecast help?

You'll just get the same information but it'll use more paper.

[TIMMEEEE]

Sounds like they are trying to pander to the lowest common denominator - ie: Sports pilots/private pilots that cant be bothered to either learn or use an internationally recognised method of coding met reports.

This is the ICAO standard used by pilot bodies worldwide.

Have to agree with AerocatS2A wholeheartedly.
An ACARS report sent to an aircraft can be 3 or 4 lines (currently) or numerous pages if these clowns at the bottom end of the gene pool have their way.

There is an internationally agreed standard you guys for MET reports.
Its not brilliant, but is effective and allows pilots from anywhere in the world to operate to anywhere in the world and understand the weather at the other end!

If some of you guys want a plain language forecast for Bumf@*k Idaho then petition the bureau of MET and get a user pays service!

[Fred Gassit]

At times when I have to take down TAFs etc. on the phone from briefing I use my own shorthand-it's exactly the same format as BOM presents it in, it works for me.

[blueloo]

Standard met forecast is, morning light winds followed by southerly change chance of showers this arvo.

- Will a forecast like that require an alternate?



How will you judge whether you will need extra fuel or not? (yes i know current forecasting is hit and miss - and most of the time we adjust fuel based on what we think/experience)

Will there be magic catchphrases - like "weather will be crap, carry an hours fuel"

[aircraft]

Radix-Lecti,

Your complaint is about the accuracy of the forecast - that has nothing to do with whether it is in plain language or not.

I think the current system works very well.

[peuce]

Although I have a certain amount of sympathy for the recreational pilots who are pushing for the change, I believe that to be worthy of the title of PILOT you have a responsibility to educate yourself to a level that can interpret weather information presented in an internationally agreed format.

If you indeed need the information contained in a met forecast, it follows that you must be piloting something more than just a powered hang glider... so a professional piloting attitude is a requisite for such activities.

[topdrop]

Current presentation of TAFs is great and does not need changing.
I remember as a student getting to know what all the abbreviations meant. Nearly all jobs/pastimes have lingo, acronoyms etc. If you want to partake, it's up to you to learn that lingo.
Rather than trying to fix a system that isn't broken, their time could be better spent by learning the abbreviations, rather than complaining about it.

[Angle of Attack]

Ditto,

What the hell is wrong with the TAF format? It gives you the exact info you need and more imprtantly the exact times significant changes will be occuring. Its not that complicated to learn, damn even when I had a GFPT I remember only occasionly needing to look up a code because it was used rarely. If you want a plain language forecast look on the back of the newspaper!

Next we will have be would be doctors asking for a "Surgery for Dummies" book to be released! :ugh:

[tlf]

Well apparently it's too hard for the poor babies getting into the industry these days to understand. It's worked well for many years, there's no need to change it.

Maybe what we're seeing is a result of the standards of basic education these days.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

We have 30 to 40 pages of briefing stuff to wade through as it is. And people want to make it 35 to 45 pages?

Spare me. Time people turned their attention to the IMPORTANT issues facing aviation in this country.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

I know - two recognised, approved formats: the new "plain English" format for people with an MPL and the tried-and-true for the rest of us? ;)

[blueloo]

How bout full format notams date and time, and fully expanded wording ----- we can make each briefing 100-150 pages easily cant we?

[Radix-Lecti]

Sorry, not clear enough. For the record, I don't have an interperatation problem with the TAF/ Met in it's current format warts and all. Although from an operational and legal standpoint, innacurate reports can get me cranky.

I just wondered what the take was on changes to the format. There has been a lot talk and writing about it. I was simply curious. No offence meant.

[gas-chamber]

First the good old written exams went to multi-choice (great win for good guessers and gamblers), then they dropped Morse code (gave the memory-challenged and tone deaf a chance) now you want the wx in English? What next, licences issued via an internet donation to the University of Lagos? Let's keep it just a little more difficult than a cabbie licence, please.

[Sunfish]

Timmeee, Thank you for your comments about us private pilots at the lower end of the gene pool.

I don't know of any who have problems reading the forecasts.

By the way, do you have any idea why and how the specific codes and formats were developed?

[Jet_A_Knight]

Or why some codes are from another language?

[criticalmass]

As one who does actually fly "a powered hang-glider", I use the TAF for my local airport almost every day, I understand how to read it, and I see no reason to change it.

[anito4a]

This morning's ARFOR for area 30 had: "VISBILITY- 500M FG, Smoke"
So why is for FOG given in code and smoke in plain English?

As for the PPL's, all they need to know to decode is CAVOK. No CAVOK on the forecast, no fly. Simple. :}

[Icarus2001]

This morning's ARFOR for area 30 had: "VISBILITY- 500M FG, Smoke"
So why is for FOG given in code and smoke in plain English?
Probably because the met guys have been reading pprune and rather than use FU and suffer a wave of phone calls asking what FU means they thought what the hell, add three letters and be done with it.:sad:

[Sunfish]

FU = Fume
HJ = heures jour (or whatever)
HN = Heures Nuit

I think it has escaped peoples attention that these codes are part of an international system and that for some people, putting them "in plain english" is still putting them in code.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Anito said: "As for the PPL's, all they need to know to decode is CAVOK. No CAVOK on the forecast, no fly. Simple."

I'm fairly simple, and haven't quite got my PPL yet, but I don't need CAVOK to fly, and fly legal. To fly I need to be able to read the weather, I need to be able to observe the weather and understand both.

Radish-fecti said: "...TAF...IMHO...CAVOK...BoM..."

If acronyms & abbreviations (why is that word so long...) are such an anathema to you why do you use them??? If you have difficulty understanding same why do you clutter your own presentations with the same thing???? This is not the first thread I have seen with such inconguities.

Sunfishy said (most wisely): "...these codes are part of an international system..."

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Stop picking on Sports Pilots / GA / Rec Pilots as the lowest common denominator - some of them have a hell of a lot more flying experience (including plenty ex-RPT) than someone who would post a sweeping generalisation like that comment.

And leave the format alone - as mentioned above, it is great shorthand. If you are updating your WX in flight and don't have the benefit of ACARS or similar, it is likely you are scribbling it down.

If we did change it in AU it would be another non-ICAO standard to be noted.

[mustafagander]

It seems to me that we are trying to make it easier for "newbies" off the street to get a handle on what a forecast means. If this is so, then they are learning a new set of meanings to words any way, so why not learn the ICAO codes which the non English speaking world can also use? What hardship is there in learning what a set of codes means instead of what a set of words means? Something new must be assimilated into the grey matter, so why not the ICAO codes?

[Sunfish]

Pass A Frozo:

The future is computer based flight planning systems. Enter your departure airfield, flight route and arrival information. Have the system automatically get weather forecasts within XX miles left and right of track (based on suitable diverts) and have it highlight airfields that have holding requirements etc.

We already have that.....Its called NAIPS.:ok:

[regitaekilthgiwt]

Looks like its already started :yuk: :ugh: :ugh:

From the Internet Briefing Service:

METAR TTF SPECI YSSY 070730Z 04021G31KT 8000 LIGHT THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN
FEW020 SCT080CB BKN110 23/20 Q1006 RMK RF00.2/000.6 FM0730
05015G25KT 9999 SCT030 INTER 0730/1030 4000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN
SCT015 SCT040CB FM0726 MOD TURB BLW 5000FT

TAF TAF AMD YSSY 070502Z 0606 04020G30KT 9999 SCT030 FM10 04015KT 9999
SCT025 FM00 18020G30KT 9999 FEW010 BKN020 PROB30 INTER 0614 3000
THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN SCT015 SCT040CB PROB30 INTER 2202 3000
THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN SCT010 SCT040CB INTER 0206 4000 SHOWERS OF
RAIN BKN010 RMK T 25 24 23 22 Q 1007 1007 1008 1007

TSRA or THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN? what a joke, if you can't read a METAR / TAF in shorthand you really shouldn't bother being a pilot, this is just more junk to clog up the forcast. This is just another example of people trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed....:rolleyes:

[blueloo]

METAR TTF SPECI YSSY 070900Z 06023G34KT 8000 LIGHT RAIN FEW006 SCT070CB
BKN100 22/19 Q1005 RMK RF00.0/002.4 MAMMATUS INTER 0900/1100 4000
THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN SCT015 SCT040CB FM0900 MOD TURB BLW 5000FT



Dont think I have ever seen Mammatus Clould listed on a Met Report before. Did anyone see the saggy boob cloud tonight? I didnt!

[regitaekilthgiwt]

Hello my good friend: the blue loo! So what do you think of this?!
The way we are going it great................if we are going to go long hand on everything, why not make the following:

METAR TTF SPECI YSSY 070900Z 06023G34KT 8000 LIGHT RAIN FEW006 SCT070CB
BKN100 22/19 Q1005 RMK RF00.0/002.4 MAMMATUS INTER 0900/1100 4000
THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN SCT015 SCT040CB FM0900 MOD TURB BLW 5000FT

this:

METAR, NO; TREND TYPE FORECAST, SPECIAL, FOR SYDNEY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 7TH OF THIS MONTH 0900 ZULU/GMT/UTC, WIND 060 DEGREES 23 KNOTS GUSTING 34 KNOTS, 8000 METRES VISIBILITY, LIGHT RAIN, FEW CLOUDS 600 FEET, SCATTERED CUMULONIMBUS CLOUD 7000 FEET, BROKEN CLOUD 10,000 FEET, TEMPERATURE 22 DEGREES CELSIUS / DEW POINT 19 DEGREES CELSIUS, QNH 1005 MILLIBARS. REMARK RAINFALL IN THE LAST 10 MINUTES NIL, SINCE 9AM LOCAL 2.4 MILLIMETRES, MAMMATUS CLOUD. INTERMITTENT BETWEEN 0900 ZULU/GMT/UTC TO 1100 ZULU/GMT/UTC, 4000 METRES THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN, SCATTERED CLOUD 1500 FEET, SCATTERED CUMULONIMBUS CLOUD 4000 FEET, FROM 0900 ZULU/GMT/UTC MODERATE TURBULENCE BELOW 5000 FEET.
I mean **** people, why assume people can interpret RF00.0/002.4 or FEW006 SCT070CB if they can't interpret something as simple as TSRA. Listen you lot in MET, give us all a break and go back to the way you were doing things, i.e. the ICAO way and for heavens sake stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

[blueloo]

Did that take 45 mins to write (type) out in the uncondensed version?

[regitaekilthgiwt]

No, it just takes 45 minutes to read, that’s what’s so frustrating with these idiots trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to their long-hand forecast. Imagine trying to decipher this on a SYD-MEL, the flight would be over before you had finished figuring out what it says. When something isn't broken don't try to fix it. The rest of the world seems to manage ok. :hmm:

[WynSock]

No offence taken Radix-lecti,

The weather forecast can seem wrong sometimes, but they have to err on the side of caution a bit. Also, there is not a computer on earth that can model extremely complex met systems with the sort of accuracy you are after.

In my opinion, the TAF is working fine - don't fix it. Reading the code becomes second nature with a bit of practice.