Understanding this TAF

[superdimona]

A while back I went to an Airservices Australia pilot information night. Right at the very beginning they said something like "We know you guys are going to ask about plain-english weather, it's the single biggest request we get, hopefully when we upgrade our system you will get it then".

Plain language might be a better option but I think you would need to demonstrate that (just like anyone else would do if they propose a different method of doing anything else).

OK, how about this: Offering a more user-friendly format (perhaps a combination of tables and plain english) as well as the traditional codes let's people choose their preferred option. If you are not comfortable in English, stick with the traditional system and nothing changes. If you are a seasoned vet and know the current system like the back of your hand, stick with it.

If you are a student pilot brought up in the iphone era, "weekend warrior", or just think that traditional TAFs etc belong in the telegraph era, you'd probably prefer the plain english option. I'm willing to bet there are a ton of people who find the current system "too hard" and use weather.com.au or something. At least these people would then look at actual aviation weather information.

As for a demonstration, I'd be all for a trial where both formats are included. I'd be amazed if the simplfied format isn't wildly popular.

The current coded format is easy enough to decipher and there are plenty of resources to assist with this. There should be no ambiguity; all the codes are documented and they are the only things used to describe the conditions.

Multiple people have felt the need to write computer programs to translate the codes into English. I rest my case.

[Cirronimbus]

"Multiple people have felt the need to write computer programs to translate the codes into English. I rest my case."

(Just because someone feels a need to do something does not necessarily mean it is the right thing to do. Somebody burnt an Australian flag on Australia Day........)

Any of the program writing people from the Bureau? I'm sure BoM are happier to type "TSRA" instead of "thunderstorm with rain" (for example). However, if the customers want that product, then the supplier should be able to provide it if they think there is some advantage in doing so. Shorter, coded messages are easier to prepare and send than long winded, time consuming, plain language ones. Perhaps they can create plain language versions already deciphered from the coded stuff they usually prepare, and send those instead?

I'm not fussed either way, but I don't think running both coded and plain language versions together is going to be a good idea. One or the other is the way to go and make one version the standard. Leaving things up to personal interpretation, instead of keeping everyone on the same page, will make it easier for confusion to take its toll. In the end, it is confusion that we should all be trying to avoid.

[compressor stall]

For those people advocating plain text weather, how do you copy down the ATIS or a SPECI from ATC when flying? How do you know your FO's abbreviations on the TOLD card?

there are a ton of people who find the current system "too hard"

I can't believe I've read that. It's not like its that hard to learn. What else in your flying do you find too hard? Calculating Takeoff distances? Density Altitudes? Radio Calls? Circuit procedures?
Get over it and learn it FFS.
[/rant]

[superdimona]

I don't like the idea of removing TAFs etc completely. There are big advantages in having standards, even if the standards belong in the 1930s. I guess I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is having 2 different formats. As long as the same information is presented in both, how can there be interpretation problems?

By "Plain English" I don't mean ambiguous "it should be fairly sunny today" but presenting the same information as present using standardized terms that are intuitive for an English speaker, perhaps in a table format.

What else in your flying do you find too hard? Calculating Takeoff distances? Density Altitudes? Radio Calls? Circuit procedures?
Get over it and learn it FFS

I didn't say I find it "too hard" (although I do think it sucks, and I'll bet there are tons of "old boys" who fly 10 hours a year who don't bother). It's just something that is more difficult then it needs to be. Radio calls and Circuit procedures are required for Safety reasons, and I don't see how they can be simplified much furthur, whereas there is room to make weather simpler.

If there was a requirement to do a handstand as part of your take-off checks, and it had "always been that way" I bet some people would oppose removing that as a requirement was "handstands are easy to do, harden up".