Met Form 215
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Berkshire
Met Form 215
Am I the only person who finds the new Met Form 215 difficult to interpret?
The graphics are lovely and clear, but the textual description is so complicated, with symbols and codes very densely packed. Then they try to economise on area references (A,B,C), so the symbols get jumbled up with lots that apply only to C1,C2 or C3.
I'm not against abreviated codes. TAF's and METAR's read well and are usually easily understood, but I think this Form 215 just tries to hard to abbreviate and get too much information into a couple of lines of code.
Did they really canvass GA pilots on this form?
The graphics are lovely and clear, but the textual description is so complicated, with symbols and codes very densely packed. Then they try to economise on area references (A,B,C), so the symbols get jumbled up with lots that apply only to C1,C2 or C3.
I'm not against abreviated codes. TAF's and METAR's read well and are usually easily understood, but I think this Form 215 just tries to hard to abbreviate and get too much information into a couple of lines of code.
Did they really canvass GA pilots on this form?
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: UK
With you all the way.
Confusing even to Met Ob qualified people!
The thing I miss most is the map showing what was expected by the end of the fcst period. Comparing the two maps gave you an idea of how fast all the weather was moving.
Confusing even to Met Ob qualified people!
The thing I miss most is the map showing what was expected by the end of the fcst period. Comparing the two maps gave you an idea of how fast all the weather was moving.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
From: UK
In theory it was going to be easy but.........
I can't get used to it
It's early days
N.B. if you get to it from the Met Office site you can scroll down and get the forecast map if you want to see it. You won't get this on Avbrief where many of us normally get it from.
I can't get used to it
It's early days
N.B. if you get to it from the Met Office site you can scroll down and get the forecast map if you want to see it. You won't get this on Avbrief where many of us normally get it from.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
I've given it a fair go, but I agree that in some ways it isn't an improvement. Use of colour is a good idea, but the use of sub-areas C1, C2 etc. I think takes away clarity. I also preferred the freezing levels actually on the chart as an at-a-glance guide to the conditions.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
While you are at it, ask them to stop forecasting icing every day 
On the old form it was more explicitly forecast for every cloud. This time they use the icing symbol and I think it means the same thing.
It undermines the forecast, frankly. They may as well forecast a +SHRA every day there is any cloud.
On the old form it was more explicitly forecast for every cloud. This time they use the icing symbol and I think it means the same thing.
It undermines the forecast, frankly. They may as well forecast a +SHRA every day there is any cloud.
PPruNaholic!
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
From: Buckinghamshire
I think its good (perhaps I am alone?).
This is a problem I agree - the map is still available on the MetOffice website, on the same page you get the PDF from, but it is not included within the PDF / graphic which is distributed via 3rd parties (e.g. Avbrief) so you have to go to MetOffice website to see this, which is not ideal.
Andy
The thing I miss most is the map showing what was expected by the end of the fcst period.
Andy
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: scotland
It is not only difficult to interpret, it is sometimes wrong e.g the outlook referring to a D1 area which is not shown.
It also gives our less computer-literate pilots a problem since you now have to use Adobe reader to print the darn thing out and the isobar section is not included!
Have given them appropriate feedback (on the contact-us page) so suggest you add your voice there...
It also gives our less computer-literate pilots a problem since you now have to use Adobe reader to print the darn thing out and the isobar section is not included!
Have given them appropriate feedback (on the contact-us page) so suggest you add your voice there...
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Kendal, UK
Well 'ard to understand. I dont like it now.
I was really excited about the new met info to brighten up my otherwise dull pilot day but they are a real letdown and I agree with IO540 that there seems to be icing everywhere now.
I was really excited about the new met info to brighten up my otherwise dull pilot day but they are a real letdown and I agree with IO540 that there seems to be icing everywhere now.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Berkshire
Clarity
No, Aussie, we're not saying we can't decode it. And I'm sure you're not saying that it's a good thing that it's hard work to use.
All we're saying is that it's unnecessarily hard work to decode it. As a piece of information communication it's hopeless. They've made it much more complicated by the A1,B1,B2 nonsense. What's wrong with D and E? Secondly the symbols have escalated in number to the extent that the compression of information clouds the message.
All we're saying is that it's unnecessarily hard work to decode it. As a piece of information communication it's hopeless. They've made it much more complicated by the A1,B1,B2 nonsense. What's wrong with D and E? Secondly the symbols have escalated in number to the extent that the compression of information clouds the message.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I think that on the scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is no information, and 10 is a 3D forecast of the atmosphere with accurate tops and icing potential presented on a website into which you could type in your route in 3D, the new F215 is about #5.
Obviously a lot depends on what's actually happening. If the situation is a high pressure covering much of Europe (e.g. summer 2003) which has been stuck there for weeks, F215 is just fine But if the weather is more complex, it's much less useful.
The UK Met Orifice could do a lot better with the data they do have, undoubtedly the best data that exists for the UK and running in the most accurate computer model there is for the UK, but the good stuff is offered only to paying parties. Like some of those £1.50/minute people who you can phone up.
I think the whole of aviation weather forecasting for private pilots is stuck in the WW1/WW2 time warp in which everything else (training included) is stuck and shows no sign of ever coming out. The whole European private pilot population (well those that fly beyond a 1hr-max burger run) ranges from irrelevant (UK) to nearly nonexistent (much of Europe) so there is no pressure to improve anything. It's different in the USA.
Fortunately WW2 ended a while ago and now there are other data sources. Unless it's a clear CAVOK situation, I always consult (in addition to the usual UK sources e.g. Avbrief) GFS, e.g.
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/cmet.html
and the Animated Soundings at
http://pages.unibas.ch/geo/mcr/3d/meteo/
I think PPL training should include a short course entitled "how to get weather off the internet"
Obviously a lot depends on what's actually happening. If the situation is a high pressure covering much of Europe (e.g. summer 2003) which has been stuck there for weeks, F215 is just fine
But if the weather is more complex, it's much less useful.The UK Met Orifice could do a lot better with the data they do have, undoubtedly the best data that exists for the UK and running in the most accurate computer model there is for the UK, but the good stuff is offered only to paying parties. Like some of those £1.50/minute people who you can phone up.
I think the whole of aviation weather forecasting for private pilots is stuck in the WW1/WW2 time warp in which everything else (training included) is stuck and shows no sign of ever coming out. The whole European private pilot population (well those that fly beyond a 1hr-max burger run) ranges from irrelevant (UK) to nearly nonexistent (much of Europe) so there is no pressure to improve anything. It's different in the USA.
Fortunately WW2 ended a while ago and now there are other data sources. Unless it's a clear CAVOK situation, I always consult (in addition to the usual UK sources e.g. Avbrief) GFS, e.g.
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/cmet.html
and the Animated Soundings at
http://pages.unibas.ch/geo/mcr/3d/meteo/
I think PPL training should include a short course entitled "how to get weather off the internet"
Last edited by IO540; 6th April 2006 at 08:44.
