ARFOR & SIGMET interpretation
Guest
Posts: n/a
ARFOR & SIGMET interpretation
Gentlemen, any of you able to help with a couple of obscure tech questions? I've scoured Jeppesen & AIP for an answer but can't seem to find.
SIGMET from a couple of days ago stated YMMM MELBOURNE FIR SEV TURB FCST WI AREA 70 BELOW A080 STNR NC. Anyone know what STNR NC means?
Also with an ARFOR from same day:
AREA22 (22)
AREA QNH 01/04
AREA 22: 1023
AREA FORECAST 132300 TO 141100 AREA 22
Am I right in saying the QNH value of 1023 is valid between 01 - 04? Isn't this a little strange given the forecast runs from 23 - 11? Why don't they don't provide QNH values for the entire forecast period?
Thanks to any tech genius in advance
SC
SIGMET from a couple of days ago stated YMMM MELBOURNE FIR SEV TURB FCST WI AREA 70 BELOW A080 STNR NC. Anyone know what STNR NC means?
Also with an ARFOR from same day:
AREA22 (22)
AREA QNH 01/04
AREA 22: 1023
AREA FORECAST 132300 TO 141100 AREA 22
Am I right in saying the QNH value of 1023 is valid between 01 - 04? Isn't this a little strange given the forecast runs from 23 - 11? Why don't they don't provide QNH values for the entire forecast period?
Thanks to any tech genius in advance
SC
Without opening a can of worms, why aren't they in plain language anyway?
Without opening a can of worms, why aren't they in plain language anyway?
Is it because there would be more chance for confusion globally? ie pilots with english as a second language? If that is the case they could always issue it both ways I guess.
short flights long nights
Going into the USA yesterday the ATIS had the ILS "OTS"...which is, I found out, after a bit of head scratching, was "Out of Service"...????
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this has been covered several times, it's much easier to skim read 15 pages of abbreviations than read 30 of plain English. For those who don't require that much weather there are programs that can translate it for you.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an iPhone app, AeroWeather, that will give you the choice of both.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 45
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify further, the STNR refers to the movement of the area. Another example would be MOV N 10KT. The NC refers to the intensity of the phenomenon. Other options there would be INTSF (intensifying) or WKN (weakening). Hope that helps.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plain Language or Plane Language
Why do we need to have an "app" to convert met messages. How hard can it be for Aircircuses and BOM to provide an option? See how Nav Canada does it.
Seems we have some kind of perverse snobbery in Oz Aviation that makes us always make everything as hard as possible. "We can't make flying easy or the common people would be doing it."
The safety of very many private and recreational pilots, plus a few not so current "White Knights" would be improved if the option was available. Whats more the "Pros" would never have to look at it.
Seems we have some kind of perverse snobbery in Oz Aviation that makes us always make everything as hard as possible. "We can't make flying easy or the common people would be doing it."
The safety of very many private and recreational pilots, plus a few not so current "White Knights" would be improved if the option was available. Whats more the "Pros" would never have to look at it.
Seagull V et al,
The Civil Aviation Act 1988 requires us to comply with ICAO SARPs, that is exactly what BOM does.
It's not all that hard ---- who remembers when it was all numerical code groups, and we had to translate each number group --- what we have is the "plain language" successor.
Airservices (or BOM) are not going to spend one brass razzo more than they have to -- without political direction. The relative handful of pilots who have a problem with the current system just don't constitute a political force, nor is there an overwhelming public perception of a "safety" problem about this issue.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Be wary of the legality of using "translation" apps --- are the results certified to, say, comply with CAR 233 ?? --- no they are not!! Use of these apps is very much caveat emptor.
The Civil Aviation Act 1988 requires us to comply with ICAO SARPs, that is exactly what BOM does.
It's not all that hard ---- who remembers when it was all numerical code groups, and we had to translate each number group --- what we have is the "plain language" successor.
Airservices (or BOM) are not going to spend one brass razzo more than they have to -- without political direction. The relative handful of pilots who have a problem with the current system just don't constitute a political force, nor is there an overwhelming public perception of a "safety" problem about this issue.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Be wary of the legality of using "translation" apps --- are the results certified to, say, comply with CAR 233 ?? --- no they are not!! Use of these apps is very much caveat emptor.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Seems we have some kind of perverse snobbery in Oz Aviation that makes us always make everything as hard as possible.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we need to have an "app" to convert met messages. How hard can it be for Aircircuses and BOM to provide an option? See how Nav Canada does it.
Seems we have some kind of perverse snobbery in Oz Aviation that makes us always make everything as hard as possible. "We can't make flying easy or the common people would be doing it."
The safety of very many private and recreational pilots, plus a few not so current "White Knights" would be improved if the option was available. Whats more the "Pros" would never have to look at it.
Seems we have some kind of perverse snobbery in Oz Aviation that makes us always make everything as hard as possible. "We can't make flying easy or the common people would be doing it."
The safety of very many private and recreational pilots, plus a few not so current "White Knights" would be improved if the option was available. Whats more the "Pros" would never have to look at it.
cheers
A172
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere over Davy Jones's locker
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had to decipher some obscure TAF's from abroad and Australia does not have it that bad. The decode is presented nicely in AIP. The difference is that the pro's don't need to remember it all because they know where to look for the answers! Not the lazy option of having it all presented to you and only reading AIP once... for your exam...criticism on this post optional.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a lot to be said for retaining and using standard phrases. Just imagine the variety of interpretations you could end up with if forecasters used 'plain' language on ARFORS and other met info. Read some of the quotes in newspaper articles and you might get an idea of what I mean. Not all forecasters have a perfect understanding of the English language; many speak it as a second language. Same thing with aircrew. Sticking to standard phrases and codes removes any doubt. If learning and deciphering those standard phrases and codes (looking it up in textbooks) is too hard for you, flying probably isn't for you.
Cirronimbus,
A very important point ---- required would be a set of standard plain language phrases to interpret a set of phrases that are already aviation plain (or is that plane) language --- to prevent creating any more inadvertent criminals.
Just learn/have a reference handy to read the ICAO already plain language met.
Don't complicate in the pursuit of simplification ---- a bad Australian habit!!
Tootle pip!!
A very important point ---- required would be a set of standard plain language phrases to interpret a set of phrases that are already aviation plain (or is that plane) language --- to prevent creating any more inadvertent criminals.
Just learn/have a reference handy to read the ICAO already plain language met.
Don't complicate in the pursuit of simplification ---- a bad Australian habit!!
Tootle pip!!