TAF format changes
 

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.

How will a plain english forecast help?

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

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!

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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? ;)

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

Sorry - unclear
 

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.

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.

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?

Or why some codes are from another language?

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.

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. :}

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: