Strange METAR
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BackSeatDriver,
I'm not a meteorologist but I was trained by the Bureau to do aviation met obs and am a qualified aerodrome weather observer (among other things). Doesn't mean I know all there is to know about meteorology but I do have a reasonable grasp on metar/speci stuff (I think).
The Bureau's own specification of siting of met instruments (specification 2013.1) states that barometric pressure should be within 0.3hPa of their standard barometer. Not sure where you could view a copy of that specification but a call to a capital city regional office and ask for an Observer Inspector and you should be able to get confirmation of that spec. I know a couple of met observers (through my training) and next time I'm in touch with one of them, I will ask them about those groups at the end of the messages. I'm intrigued now and want to know just what they mean. I'm sure they weren't supposed to be included; if they were then there should be some reference somewhere that we could use to decipher them. I can't find anything that would help us do that and as I've said before, there are more groups at the end of the raw message that can acutally be longer than the actual metar. It would be a real headache to try to decipher them if they were sent out with the metar.
Nautilus Blue's version of a plain language interpretation is a scary thought. God forbid that the bureaucrats ever get the idea to hit us with something like it. I still think there is room for a plain language version of a metar though.
Cheers,
Cn
I'm not a meteorologist but I was trained by the Bureau to do aviation met obs and am a qualified aerodrome weather observer (among other things). Doesn't mean I know all there is to know about meteorology but I do have a reasonable grasp on metar/speci stuff (I think).
The Bureau's own specification of siting of met instruments (specification 2013.1) states that barometric pressure should be within 0.3hPa of their standard barometer. Not sure where you could view a copy of that specification but a call to a capital city regional office and ask for an Observer Inspector and you should be able to get confirmation of that spec. I know a couple of met observers (through my training) and next time I'm in touch with one of them, I will ask them about those groups at the end of the messages. I'm intrigued now and want to know just what they mean. I'm sure they weren't supposed to be included; if they were then there should be some reference somewhere that we could use to decipher them. I can't find anything that would help us do that and as I've said before, there are more groups at the end of the raw message that can acutally be longer than the actual metar. It would be a real headache to try to decipher them if they were sent out with the metar.
Nautilus Blue's version of a plain language interpretation is a scary thought. God forbid that the bureaucrats ever get the idea to hit us with something like it. I still think there is room for a plain language version of a metar though.
Cheers,
Cn
Pretty close to the mark Nautilus Blue, but no warning for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Isanders, non hetro-sexual people, no interpreter service for non english speaking citizens that may arrive by boat.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Somewhere in Indo...
Age: 48
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Login to PEMET
A pretty good training tool as well... as it shows the original METAR/TAF and the decode...
This service would appear to have the "blessing" of MetFlight (although they do issue the customary disclaimer as they redirect you), by including a "Plain Language" button on the MetFlight briefing screen...
Below is an example of the output, including the highlighting etc... The original also includes a translation of the ARFOR, but I removed it as it is displayed in a table and looks messy with copy/paste:
AUCKLAND
METAR NZAA 052000Z 15007KT CAVOK 18/16 Q1014 NOSIG TEMPO 2000 TSRA FEW020CB
Report issued 6th 9am Wind: gentle southeasterly (150°) 7 kt Visibility: ceiling and visibility OK
Temperature: 18°C Dewpoint:16°C QNH: 1014 hPa Weather: no significant change expected
from time to time:
Visibility: 2000 m Weather: thunderstorm with rain
Cloud (AGL): few at 2000 ft with cumulonimbus
TAF NZAA 051706Z 0518/0618 15005KT 9999 SCT030 BECMG 0520/0522 15015KT 2000FT WIND 14025KT QNH MNM 1010 MAX 1019
Forecast issued 6th 6:06am valid from 7am to 7am
Wind: light southeasterly (150°) 5 kt Visibility: 10 km or more
Cloud (AGL): scattered at 3000 ft
between 9am and 11am becoming
Wind: moderate southeasterly (150°) 15 kt
2000 ft wind: southeasterly (140°) 25 kt
QNH: min/max 1010/1019
A pretty good training tool as well... as it shows the original METAR/TAF and the decode...
This service would appear to have the "blessing" of MetFlight (although they do issue the customary disclaimer as they redirect you), by including a "Plain Language" button on the MetFlight briefing screen...
Below is an example of the output, including the highlighting etc... The original also includes a translation of the ARFOR, but I removed it as it is displayed in a table and looks messy with copy/paste:
AUCKLAND
METAR NZAA 052000Z 15007KT CAVOK 18/16 Q1014 NOSIG TEMPO 2000 TSRA FEW020CB
Report issued 6th 9am Wind: gentle southeasterly (150°) 7 kt Visibility: ceiling and visibility OK
Temperature: 18°C Dewpoint:16°C QNH: 1014 hPa Weather: no significant change expected
from time to time:
Visibility: 2000 m Weather: thunderstorm with rain
Cloud (AGL): few at 2000 ft with cumulonimbus
TAF NZAA 051706Z 0518/0618 15005KT 9999 SCT030 BECMG 0520/0522 15015KT 2000FT WIND 14025KT QNH MNM 1010 MAX 1019
Forecast issued 6th 6:06am valid from 7am to 7am
Wind: light southeasterly (150°) 5 kt Visibility: 10 km or more
Cloud (AGL): scattered at 3000 ft
between 9am and 11am becoming
Wind: moderate southeasterly (150°) 15 kt
2000 ft wind: southeasterly (140°) 25 kt
QNH: min/max 1010/1019
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
METAR is heaps easier reading than the decoded form I feel, especially when you are reading through sometimes dozens of them for one flight. Yeah occasionally you might get a code for something you don't recognize but thats a rare instance indeed. Crappy weather METARS/TAFS always attract your attention they are more than a couple of lines long!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stationair8 that's because to be honest I pinched it from a US website. Really unfair to Met really, now that I think about it. Are there any other people who sell predictions AND can get in trouble if they are wrong?
Seriously though, I don't know how much more simple a METAR needs to be. A few separators here and there maybe, eg 150/007kt I think is easier to read, but Q1014 and SCT030 etc shouldn't be a problem. Also some of the wx abbrev (see what I did there) like FU and BR etc would be just as easy to spell out, bur I doubt OACI, sorry ICAO would be 'appy, non?
Seriously though, I don't know how much more simple a METAR needs to be. A few separators here and there maybe, eg 150/007kt I think is easier to read, but Q1014 and SCT030 etc shouldn't be a problem. Also some of the wx abbrev (see what I did there) like FU and BR etc would be just as easy to spell out, bur I doubt OACI, sorry ICAO would be 'appy, non?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How simple does a metar need to be?
Yeah, that is right; just how simple does a metar need to be? Why does the met mob need to add all that other stuff "F9/181/015/688"? So far, no one seems to be able to work out just what it means; so why include it? I'm pretty certain that the data in question was not meant to be issued to the wider community but how would we know if we're meant to take notice of it or not?
I've issued heaps of metar/specis in my time and I can't decipher it but I'm certain that it is just some of the stuff that the automatic equipment adds to the raw message before it gets to the met guys who (should) remove it and then add TAFs (if required) before everyone else sees it.
When it does get to the end user, how are we supposed to know if it we are supposed to take notice or not? I wonder how many people out there actually take notice of the plain language that is sometimes included in the remarks section of metar/specis?
As it is, there is plenty of information that NEEDS to be taken into account without irrelevant stuff being thrown into the mix. That superfluous stuff doesn't help the end user and a lot of what is added actually doesn't need to be there in the first place. If the met guys actually need to know about whatever that stuff tells them, perhaps they should have an alternative means of getting that info?
I've issued heaps of metar/specis in my time and I can't decipher it but I'm certain that it is just some of the stuff that the automatic equipment adds to the raw message before it gets to the met guys who (should) remove it and then add TAFs (if required) before everyone else sees it.
When it does get to the end user, how are we supposed to know if it we are supposed to take notice or not? I wonder how many people out there actually take notice of the plain language that is sometimes included in the remarks section of metar/specis?
As it is, there is plenty of information that NEEDS to be taken into account without irrelevant stuff being thrown into the mix. That superfluous stuff doesn't help the end user and a lot of what is added actually doesn't need to be there in the first place. If the met guys actually need to know about whatever that stuff tells them, perhaps they should have an alternative means of getting that info?
One fine day, possibly in the 2020s, all this will be in plain english so mere mortals don't have to struggle with this 1940s nonsense.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if plain language metars would be too cumbersome; we could do without them altogether? Perhaps the TAF on its own would be enough?
Just how much info do we need? I'm sure that a lot of that data is not really relevant. How often does anyone use the visibility that is reported from the met office? Who cares how far they can see; they're not looking up and down the runway (for eg)?
Did any of us need to know about "F9/181/015/688"? Wouldn't it be simpler for all concerned if we are only told about the met conditions that directly affect us?
Just how much info do we need? I'm sure that a lot of that data is not really relevant. How often does anyone use the visibility that is reported from the met office? Who cares how far they can see; they're not looking up and down the runway (for eg)?
Did any of us need to know about "F9/181/015/688"? Wouldn't it be simpler for all concerned if we are only told about the met conditions that directly affect us?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 78
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVMET gibberish
www.pemet.com.au
does plain language Oz met. By the same amateur (me) who did the NZ one. Works on an iPhone as well.
IB
does plain language Oz met. By the same amateur (me) who did the NZ one. Works on an iPhone as well.
IB
Last edited by ianboag; 11th Mar 2010 at 19:34. Reason: Forgot to mention iPhone
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why in this day and age should we have to decode a METAR anyway?
Have a look at the Beijing TTF:
METAR ZBAA 120230Z 33007MPS CAVOK 07/M18 Q1020 NOSIG
I can read it fine, but if you had your way it would be in Mandarin, and only our PM could read it...
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Spodman.
Fair question you ask there; "Which language is it you are insisting it be translated into???"
Perhaps "plain" language isn't the best option but rather some "universal" language that ALL users could understand or at least have ready access to some sort of deciphering tool?
I am guessing that the wind in the Beijing metar; "33007MPS" is 330° at 07 Metres Per Second rather than in Kts like we in Australia use? I know that different countries use different units of measurement and that can cause problems in deciphering and conversions. That can make it a bit confusing for some people.
I wonder if the pilots in Beijing could decipher ""F9/181/015/688"; so far, no one here seems to understand what that means. Some of us have had a guess but the point is, if individual met services decide to add groups or data that THEY think is relevant; are we getting the best service? I'm guessing that the MPS in the Beijing metar means metres per second and I'm guessing at what the other groups in the local Metar mean. Shouldn't there at least be some sort of universal language for these Met messages or at least a ready reference for deciphering the groups in those messages? So far, no one seems to know what "F9/181/015/688" means; do we ignore it or should we know what they mean?
If it isn't relevant then it shouldn't be included; if it is relevant then there should be somewhere that we can refer to so that we can decipher this info. Anyone got any ideas on where the decoding references can be found for "F9/181/015/688"?
Fair question you ask there; "Which language is it you are insisting it be translated into???"
Perhaps "plain" language isn't the best option but rather some "universal" language that ALL users could understand or at least have ready access to some sort of deciphering tool?
I am guessing that the wind in the Beijing metar; "33007MPS" is 330° at 07 Metres Per Second rather than in Kts like we in Australia use? I know that different countries use different units of measurement and that can cause problems in deciphering and conversions. That can make it a bit confusing for some people.
I wonder if the pilots in Beijing could decipher ""F9/181/015/688"; so far, no one here seems to understand what that means. Some of us have had a guess but the point is, if individual met services decide to add groups or data that THEY think is relevant; are we getting the best service? I'm guessing that the MPS in the Beijing metar means metres per second and I'm guessing at what the other groups in the local Metar mean. Shouldn't there at least be some sort of universal language for these Met messages or at least a ready reference for deciphering the groups in those messages? So far, no one seems to know what "F9/181/015/688" means; do we ignore it or should we know what they mean?
If it isn't relevant then it shouldn't be included; if it is relevant then there should be somewhere that we can refer to so that we can decipher this info. Anyone got any ideas on where the decoding references can be found for "F9/181/015/688"?
