Met not fit for purpose!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the comment was aimed at me I am not mr met man and have no vested interest in protecting the MO. In fact quite the opposite, I sit on the working group meant to keep them honest. Therefore am happy to take genuine complaints to them and have them reviewed and if there is a genuine case make sure it is fixed.
Personally have never seen forecasts and actuals like you are claiming as a regular occurrence. But if you would like to give me the ICAO code for the location you are claiming this happens I will have the forecasts, actuals, after-casts etc pulled and reviewed in accordance with the MO SLA.
Also for the record if you really are seeing those type of discrepancies then they are a reportable incident and I can advise you of the process to do so.
At the end of the day the MO are contracted by the CAA to provide a service to aviation, if they are failing to do so we need to ensure they put it right rather than just complaining about it on forums.
Personally have never seen forecasts and actuals like you are claiming as a regular occurrence. But if you would like to give me the ICAO code for the location you are claiming this happens I will have the forecasts, actuals, after-casts etc pulled and reviewed in accordance with the MO SLA.
Also for the record if you really are seeing those type of discrepancies then they are a reportable incident and I can advise you of the process to do so.
At the end of the day the MO are contracted by the CAA to provide a service to aviation, if they are failing to do so we need to ensure they put it right rather than just complaining about it on forums.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose
As I said earlier on, they have an SLA with the CAA and are measured on two indicators only. These do not involve the timings of fronts or even wind speed ad direction - they are (I believe, visibility and cloud amount)
They can certainly claim to be meeting those, as it would be difficult not to. I was told by the Met person at Air Expo that if we wanted more accuracy in the forecast to meet, say fronts, precipitation etc, then someone will have to pay for it.
As for an example, the EGTE TAFs were wrong (sort of) on Tuesday and, arguably, on Wednesday. The a*rse-covering prob 30 may give them a get-out though.
And is it true that there has never been a forecast which has not had 'cloud on hills' in it, even when the forecast is for CAVOK?
As I said earlier on, they have an SLA with the CAA and are measured on two indicators only. These do not involve the timings of fronts or even wind speed ad direction - they are (I believe, visibility and cloud amount)
They can certainly claim to be meeting those, as it would be difficult not to. I was told by the Met person at Air Expo that if we wanted more accuracy in the forecast to meet, say fronts, precipitation etc, then someone will have to pay for it.
As for an example, the EGTE TAFs were wrong (sort of) on Tuesday and, arguably, on Wednesday. The a*rse-covering prob 30 may give them a get-out though.
And is it true that there has never been a forecast which has not had 'cloud on hills' in it, even when the forecast is for CAVOK?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin,
I am not arguing with you or anyone else. I need specific cases and I will have them investigated.
If you have a specific example of a forecast and actual being miles apart give me the ICAO code and time and date.
How far from accurate are you saying that the front timings are off?
I am not sure I understand your point about clouds on hills can you explain more? My understanding is that even on CAVOK days you are likely to get cloud on hills due to orthographic lifting and wave effect.
I am not arguing with you or anyone else. I need specific cases and I will have them investigated.
If you have a specific example of a forecast and actual being miles apart give me the ICAO code and time and date.
How far from accurate are you saying that the front timings are off?
I am not sure I understand your point about clouds on hills can you explain more? My understanding is that even on CAVOK days you are likely to get cloud on hills due to orthographic lifting and wave effect.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose
I'll check my logbook for the date, but the TAFs on one day in July for EGTE started off with frontal rain due through around 10.00Z. The 1019 TAF put it back to around 1300Z and and by the 1622 TAF to 20.00Z. The rain arrrived around 22.00Z.
I can appreciate that these indicate a slowing of the weather systems, but the day was perfectly good for flying and (on the basis of the morning TAFs and BBC weather forecast) a number of students phoned up to cancel.
Similarly on Saturday last week at EGTE, the forecast showed poorish visibility, but not the low cloud we had around the airfield.
We are in a credit crunch affecting a lot of people, and they are not going to waste money on petrol getting to the airfield if there is a risk they won't be flying.
Our local schools are tearing their hair out trying to keep going, but they have lost a number of possible days of flying because students and hirers believe the forecasts.
Oh, and the cloud on hills bit is in the Airmet part of the Met Office site. It is just so strange to see CAVOK or SKC throughout the region, but with Cloud on Hills in every one I've ever seen.
I'll check my logbook for the date, but the TAFs on one day in July for EGTE started off with frontal rain due through around 10.00Z. The 1019 TAF put it back to around 1300Z and and by the 1622 TAF to 20.00Z. The rain arrrived around 22.00Z.
I can appreciate that these indicate a slowing of the weather systems, but the day was perfectly good for flying and (on the basis of the morning TAFs and BBC weather forecast) a number of students phoned up to cancel.
Similarly on Saturday last week at EGTE, the forecast showed poorish visibility, but not the low cloud we had around the airfield.
We are in a credit crunch affecting a lot of people, and they are not going to waste money on petrol getting to the airfield if there is a risk they won't be flying.
Our local schools are tearing their hair out trying to keep going, but they have lost a number of possible days of flying because students and hirers believe the forecasts.
Oh, and the cloud on hills bit is in the Airmet part of the Met Office site. It is just so strange to see CAVOK or SKC throughout the region, but with Cloud on Hills in every one I've ever seen.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so give me the EXACT dates and I will have them looked at.
Interestingly though I am seeing the possibility of localised weather conditions and a lack of correct interpretation rather than incorrect data.
As for the frontal comments, fronts do slow and the metoffice corrects the forecasts as it happens.
Interestingly though I am seeing the possibility of localised weather conditions and a lack of correct interpretation rather than incorrect data.
As for the frontal comments, fronts do slow and the metoffice corrects the forecasts as it happens.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back in the real world
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread.
I work at a flying school and I ferry aircraft about in the South and Midlands when I'm not at 'work' so I find myself taking a daily view on the METARs and TAFs. Exeter, Bristol, Bournemouth, Brize, Boscombe, Heathrow and Gatwick are the sites I take most interest in. The reports and forecasts very accurate and have yet to let me down but I have noticed a couple of strange 'local affects'.
Local airfield weather can be very different from the reporting site just a few miles away. Old Sarum and Boscombe is an example where the TAF and METAR can read 9999 and at Old Sarum you can be sat in mist all day, yet the sites are just 2 miles away from each other.
Students and Hirers will read the TAFs and METARs then call the ops desk for our thoughts. Many a time I've had to give a view, taken from the METAR and TAF, significantly different from the information the caller has derived from the same reports. Some read the reports with hope, others with doom and a few incorrectly.
I have noticed a great number who don't use the 215, visible sat or rainfall radars which are also provided by the MO. These are tools which, taken with the TAFs and METARs, should allow us to 'take a view' on the weather and how it may affect the flight.
Forecasters do seem to take an over gloomy view for the TAF and I think it's fair and right to do so. You can plot the weather quite easily using the tools from the MO to decide if you agree with the forecaster or not. I'm not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs here but I've seen so few do it, seemingly stuck using just the TAF and METAR reports.
With all due respect to the people who have made complaints about the failings of the MO - Bose has provided a direct route to the heart of the organisation and you should provide the information and prove your complaint to be true and not just some pointless winge, which in reality proves nothing more than your own inability or lack of willing to read the weather correctly for yourself. From where I'm sitting it looks like the latter, as every TAF forecaster and METAR report downwind of your planned flight had to have been wrong, all day, including the 215 forecast and the weather radars. How likely is that then?
I await with a large humble pie at the ready.
I work at a flying school and I ferry aircraft about in the South and Midlands when I'm not at 'work' so I find myself taking a daily view on the METARs and TAFs. Exeter, Bristol, Bournemouth, Brize, Boscombe, Heathrow and Gatwick are the sites I take most interest in. The reports and forecasts very accurate and have yet to let me down but I have noticed a couple of strange 'local affects'.
Local airfield weather can be very different from the reporting site just a few miles away. Old Sarum and Boscombe is an example where the TAF and METAR can read 9999 and at Old Sarum you can be sat in mist all day, yet the sites are just 2 miles away from each other.
Students and Hirers will read the TAFs and METARs then call the ops desk for our thoughts. Many a time I've had to give a view, taken from the METAR and TAF, significantly different from the information the caller has derived from the same reports. Some read the reports with hope, others with doom and a few incorrectly.
I have noticed a great number who don't use the 215, visible sat or rainfall radars which are also provided by the MO. These are tools which, taken with the TAFs and METARs, should allow us to 'take a view' on the weather and how it may affect the flight.
Forecasters do seem to take an over gloomy view for the TAF and I think it's fair and right to do so. You can plot the weather quite easily using the tools from the MO to decide if you agree with the forecaster or not. I'm not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs here but I've seen so few do it, seemingly stuck using just the TAF and METAR reports.
With all due respect to the people who have made complaints about the failings of the MO - Bose has provided a direct route to the heart of the organisation and you should provide the information and prove your complaint to be true and not just some pointless winge, which in reality proves nothing more than your own inability or lack of willing to read the weather correctly for yourself. From where I'm sitting it looks like the latter, as every TAF forecaster and METAR report downwind of your planned flight had to have been wrong, all day, including the 215 forecast and the weather radars. How likely is that then?
I await with a large humble pie at the ready.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a big part of the problem is the PPL training establishment which takes a very cautious view.
Pre-PPL, you are flying on the instructor's license (so to speak) and he will not take risks. So a prob30 tempo, no matter how obviously totally wrong, has to be taken as a prob100.
On the self fly hire scene, so many renters are on marginal currency as well as knowledge, that the same applies.
Pilots are also taught to stay VFR (legally they have to) and again this leads to strict interpretations.
If however the UKMO said "OK here is the TAF but you should also look at this and this and this [weather radar, satellite, sferics, etc] " that would be different. But only self-taught IFR pilots discover these other sources - necessarily because the level of weather provision to sub-FL250-capability IFR pilots is pretty crap here in Europe.
If I was running a flying school I would ignore all prob30 stuff for purposes of all dual training/trial lessons and just use the MSLP charts for "will tomorrow be ok" purposes. Ignore cold fronts unless occluded or severely curved *at* the relevant place. Warm fronts will nearly always be crap for VFR...
Pre-PPL, you are flying on the instructor's license (so to speak) and he will not take risks. So a prob30 tempo, no matter how obviously totally wrong, has to be taken as a prob100.
On the self fly hire scene, so many renters are on marginal currency as well as knowledge, that the same applies.
Pilots are also taught to stay VFR (legally they have to) and again this leads to strict interpretations.
If however the UKMO said "OK here is the TAF but you should also look at this and this and this [weather radar, satellite, sferics, etc] " that would be different. But only self-taught IFR pilots discover these other sources - necessarily because the level of weather provision to sub-FL250-capability IFR pilots is pretty crap here in Europe.
If I was running a flying school I would ignore all prob30 stuff for purposes of all dual training/trial lessons and just use the MSLP charts for "will tomorrow be ok" purposes. Ignore cold fronts unless occluded or severely curved *at* the relevant place. Warm fronts will nearly always be crap for VFR...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, as you started the thread and bose has offered to get an official response to the question it would be really interesting if you or anyone else can give some specifics ?
A weather forecast is just that - a forecast. It is not, and never claims to be, a definitive statement about what the weather will do.
If you have a way of knowing with 100% accuracy what the weather will do in the future, please go and start your own forecasting company. With that sort of accuracy you will be very rich.
If you have a way of knowing with 100% accuracy what the weather will do in the future, please go and start your own forecasting company. With that sort of accuracy you will be very rich.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x ... I don't think the thread starter will, but I would like to thank you for volunteering to look into something for a ppruner... its guys like you that make this website worthwile
I have no experience of the met reports for the smaller airports around the UK, but I have operated into Heathrow for a few years now. (And Stansted, Gatwick and Amsterdam a few times when the Met Office was being pesimistic
)
I'd have to say that the TAF's are, by world standards, absolutely first rate.
Ken Wells, you have to think about what other purposes the met forecasts have other than for just local flying clubs. Weather reports have major impact on passenger flights, changing alternate requirements, to the level of even preventing approaches. They do get them wrong occasionally, and they'll usually err towards the pesimistic side, given the strife an aircraft can get in if the weather turns worse. I'd like to know that the weather on the TAF is the worst that i'm going to encounter, and anything better is a positive.
You've seen yourself that the weather is often better than what you read the night before on the TAF... so why not wait until the day to decide? Same goes for students... why cancel the day before, when you could wait until the day, and find out what the weather actually is. This is the UK we're talking about after all
Metars are usually much more accurate anyway...
I have no experience of the met reports for the smaller airports around the UK, but I have operated into Heathrow for a few years now. (And Stansted, Gatwick and Amsterdam a few times when the Met Office was being pesimistic
)I'd have to say that the TAF's are, by world standards, absolutely first rate.
Ken Wells, you have to think about what other purposes the met forecasts have other than for just local flying clubs. Weather reports have major impact on passenger flights, changing alternate requirements, to the level of even preventing approaches. They do get them wrong occasionally, and they'll usually err towards the pesimistic side, given the strife an aircraft can get in if the weather turns worse. I'd like to know that the weather on the TAF is the worst that i'm going to encounter, and anything better is a positive.
You've seen yourself that the weather is often better than what you read the night before on the TAF... so why not wait until the day to decide? Same goes for students... why cancel the day before, when you could wait until the day, and find out what the weather actually is. This is the UK we're talking about after all
Metars are usually much more accurate anyway...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps that is the real problem.
Remember that we are required to take the most up to date information to ensure that the flight can be undertaken safely - Met included.
Using the morning TAF/METRS/Airmet/F215/F214/length of seaweed etc, you can launch off into conditions that a later forecast determines to be unsafe.
And vice versa, but the vice versa seems to be more common.
In the type of flying I normally do, there is often not an opportunity to get an up-to-date forecast for the return trip, say 2 hours duration, so the morning forecast is almost invariably been replaced by a more current one.
My way around this is to call the home base for the latest TAFs at a couple of local airfields and current conditions at the site.
What I don't get with that are the general conditions en route.
At one event on the 12th July, there was a particularly nasty area of Prob 30 showers that merged into a band of continuous heavy rain and cloud on the deck - remember RIAT?
Either side of that area the weather was pretty good, but it was certainly 'exciting' finding a way through. Thank goodness someone on the ground had a smartphone where he could monitor the rainfall radar which showed where the worst bits had been and the clearer areas. Perhaps I ought to get myself an iPhone and use it as an on-board weather radar...
Actually, I never ignore Prob 30s but always take them into account and look to see whether the forecast fits.
In my gliding days, we had a bl**dy good metman who brought the subject to life. He taught us to use forecasts and to plan our tasks within the limits of the weather.
On the other hand, certainly at my local flying club, many power pilots plan a specific trip for a purpose, and look to see if the weather is ok for that trip. If not they will cancel. They don't even bother to see if there is a perfectly acceptable alternative flight.
Remember that we are required to take the most up to date information to ensure that the flight can be undertaken safely - Met included.
Using the morning TAF/METRS/Airmet/F215/F214/length of seaweed etc, you can launch off into conditions that a later forecast determines to be unsafe.
And vice versa, but the vice versa seems to be more common.
In the type of flying I normally do, there is often not an opportunity to get an up-to-date forecast for the return trip, say 2 hours duration, so the morning forecast is almost invariably been replaced by a more current one.
My way around this is to call the home base for the latest TAFs at a couple of local airfields and current conditions at the site.
What I don't get with that are the general conditions en route.
At one event on the 12th July, there was a particularly nasty area of Prob 30 showers that merged into a band of continuous heavy rain and cloud on the deck - remember RIAT?
Either side of that area the weather was pretty good, but it was certainly 'exciting' finding a way through. Thank goodness someone on the ground had a smartphone where he could monitor the rainfall radar which showed where the worst bits had been and the clearer areas. Perhaps I ought to get myself an iPhone and use it as an on-board weather radar...
Actually, I never ignore Prob 30s but always take them into account and look to see whether the forecast fits.
In my gliding days, we had a bl**dy good metman who brought the subject to life. He taught us to use forecasts and to plan our tasks within the limits of the weather.
On the other hand, certainly at my local flying club, many power pilots plan a specific trip for a purpose, and look to see if the weather is ok for that trip. If not they will cancel. They don't even bother to see if there is a perfectly acceptable alternative flight.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to see the TAFs/METARs for the locations/times that Ken refers to.
Poor Met Man/Woman not only has the difficulty of predicting the future but they also have to work within the rules laid down by ICAO and CAA (UK AIP, 3.5 gen, 3.5.4 c)). They cannot work outside these rules, and so often quite large changes (in cloud base/cover particularly - see the range 1500 FT to 4900 FT?) can occur over the period of a TAF without those changes being 'notifiable' - the forecaster has to consider how best to 'summarise' them in the forecast, and they no doubt more often than not go for the poorest set of conditions within that range - safety first. They can only put TEMPOs and BECMGs in if they expect conditions to breach the thresholds given for TAFs in UK AIP.
Understanding TAFs (and any forecast) properly requires the user to know what the change/amendment criteria are for that particular forecast type and ask themselves 'what would have to happen to the predicted conditions to a) cause the forecaster to include changes, or b) cause an amendment?'. Only then do you get an idea of what the possibilities are. Don't like the leeway? Lobby ICAO/CAA. RAF criteria is different, so don't apply UK AIP regs to RAF TAFs/Forecasts (though still done by Met Office forecasters)
The magnitude of the problem should not be underestimated - let's not forget that aviation forecasters are predicting the future and aiming to put numbers to cloud base, amount, visibilty, wind speed, direction etc hours into the future and working within the constraints of ICAO and CAA.
All developed nations (USA, Germany, France, Japanese, Chinese, Australians, combined European states in ECMWF etc etc) invest millions in supercomputers and forecaster training to 'solve' the future weather - maybe its not that easy.
I don't think the forecasters or the MO would claim to be perfect - but allow for the aspects that are beyond their control.
Oops Edited Civil TAFs to RAF TAFs, last sentence third para - ;-)
Poor Met Man/Woman not only has the difficulty of predicting the future but they also have to work within the rules laid down by ICAO and CAA (UK AIP, 3.5 gen, 3.5.4 c)). They cannot work outside these rules, and so often quite large changes (in cloud base/cover particularly - see the range 1500 FT to 4900 FT?) can occur over the period of a TAF without those changes being 'notifiable' - the forecaster has to consider how best to 'summarise' them in the forecast, and they no doubt more often than not go for the poorest set of conditions within that range - safety first. They can only put TEMPOs and BECMGs in if they expect conditions to breach the thresholds given for TAFs in UK AIP.
Understanding TAFs (and any forecast) properly requires the user to know what the change/amendment criteria are for that particular forecast type and ask themselves 'what would have to happen to the predicted conditions to a) cause the forecaster to include changes, or b) cause an amendment?'. Only then do you get an idea of what the possibilities are. Don't like the leeway? Lobby ICAO/CAA. RAF criteria is different, so don't apply UK AIP regs to RAF TAFs/Forecasts (though still done by Met Office forecasters)
The magnitude of the problem should not be underestimated - let's not forget that aviation forecasters are predicting the future and aiming to put numbers to cloud base, amount, visibilty, wind speed, direction etc hours into the future and working within the constraints of ICAO and CAA.
All developed nations (USA, Germany, France, Japanese, Chinese, Australians, combined European states in ECMWF etc etc) invest millions in supercomputers and forecaster training to 'solve' the future weather - maybe its not that easy.
I don't think the forecasters or the MO would claim to be perfect - but allow for the aspects that are beyond their control.
Oops Edited Civil TAFs to RAF TAFs, last sentence third para - ;-)
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might I suggest we all keep details of occasions when the TAF's don't turn out accurately and send these details to Bose-X? Lawd knows he's said it's ok to do so enough times now!
For the record I've seen more changeable WX in the UK over the last coupla years and a Met Office who perhaps struggle to forecast accurately as often as we'd like, which is of course 100% of the time!
Is this down to a dependance on computer forecasting software models?
My view on WX forecasting is that it's a bit of an artform and requires an experienced and adaptable human meteorologist' hand analysing the situation, given the myriad of different factors involved, rather than a reliance on software but hey, I appreciate this is 2008 and money is God...
VFE.
For the record I've seen more changeable WX in the UK over the last coupla years and a Met Office who perhaps struggle to forecast accurately as often as we'd like, which is of course 100% of the time!
Is this down to a dependance on computer forecasting software models?
My view on WX forecasting is that it's a bit of an artform and requires an experienced and adaptable human meteorologist' hand analysing the situation, given the myriad of different factors involved, rather than a reliance on software but hey, I appreciate this is 2008 and money is God...
VFE.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let’s be fair lads, the Met wallahs are on a hiding to sod all. Britain doesn’t have a climate; we borrow other people’s. We call it temperate maritime but it’s so narrow North and South. as to be meaningless. Whether or not it’s the famous climate change, the WX is noticeably more extreme and erratic than it was, say, 20 years ago. If the MO does err on the cautious side (ie forecast worse than actual), in this sue-the-arse-off-you-at-the-drop-of-a-hat mentality we’ve acquired, who could blame them? The answer is, learn MET and read the synoptic chart. There’s more too it, though, than passing a multi-choice exam.
I, personally, don’t believe it’s worse now than in the ’70; long before computer models were invented. I’m reminded of my QXC in NOV 71; forecast 3,000 ft wind 30 deg short and over 5 Kt too light. I learned a lot about flying, as they say: over 15 mins late landing at Ipswich and long after Ipswich Homer had gone for his dins.
There used to be a Forecaster at Manch (Polish I think) who always gave a Night/Morning forecast of "possible hill fog", just in case.
I, personally, don’t believe it’s worse now than in the ’70; long before computer models were invented. I’m reminded of my QXC in NOV 71; forecast 3,000 ft wind 30 deg short and over 5 Kt too light. I learned a lot about flying, as they say: over 15 mins late landing at Ipswich and long after Ipswich Homer had gone for his dins.
There used to be a Forecaster at Manch (Polish I think) who always gave a Night/Morning forecast of "possible hill fog", just in case.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hampshire
Age: 50
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta feel sorry for Bose-x. All the guy has done is offer to investigate folks met issues and has asked for evidence yet folks refuse to provide it and give the guy nothing but hassle 
.
Feel for you mate, I really do.
Spamcan
.Feel for you mate, I really do.
Spamcan
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't worry Spamcan, he's got thick skin!
All joking aside, sadly it does show that some posters here are all mouth and no trousers if they can't take a guy up on a decent offer like that.
VFE.
All joking aside, sadly it does show that some posters here are all mouth and no trousers if they can't take a guy up on a decent offer like that.
VFE.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the UKMO actually have any civil or criminal liability whatsoever?
I think this is a myth.
If there was any liability, or even duty of care, they would have been sued for billions back in 1987.
More like, they get fed up with 10,000 old ladies phoning them up if they forecast a sunny day and the said ladies get their tomato plants washed out by a downpour.
I think this is a myth.
If there was any liability, or even duty of care, they would have been sued for billions back in 1987.
More like, they get fed up with 10,000 old ladies phoning them up if they forecast a sunny day and the said ladies get their tomato plants washed out by a downpour.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to say, it looks very silly when people start venting their opinions on a subject they are in no way qualified to comment(1).
If you have any doubts regarding your use of weather information, by all means take up Bose's offer to have it looked into, or contact the Met Office directly with hard evidence of your observations, but our opinions on the subject are less than worthless. As has been pointed out already, just because you don't know how to use weather forecasts doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.
(1) The first three posters to insinuate that passing a 40 question multiple choice exam makes you any wiser will be permanently relegated to my ignore list.
If you have any doubts regarding your use of weather information, by all means take up Bose's offer to have it looked into, or contact the Met Office directly with hard evidence of your observations, but our opinions on the subject are less than worthless. As has been pointed out already, just because you don't know how to use weather forecasts doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.
(1) The first three posters to insinuate that passing a 40 question multiple choice exam makes you any wiser will be permanently relegated to my ignore list.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's told us...
So if I get this right:
If the weather turns out to be different from the forecast, then
a) we read it wrong in the first place
b) probably weren't qualified to understand it properly
c) didn't look at the right bit of the forecast
d) local effects got in the way of an accurate forecast
e) we misunderstood what the forecaster said.
f) because of UK conditions, we have to accept that the weather is 'mobile' and difficult to forecast. So changes are inevitable
g) Under no circumstances was the forecast at fault, and those of us who thought the forecast was wrong, are a bunch of whingers who aren't fit to lace the boots of those fine gentlemen and ladies of the Met Office....
But I take Bose_X point and in future will be making a report of any issues with the forecast directly with the Met Office.
So if I get this right:
If the weather turns out to be different from the forecast, then
a) we read it wrong in the first place
b) probably weren't qualified to understand it properly
c) didn't look at the right bit of the forecast
d) local effects got in the way of an accurate forecast
e) we misunderstood what the forecaster said.
f) because of UK conditions, we have to accept that the weather is 'mobile' and difficult to forecast. So changes are inevitable
g) Under no circumstances was the forecast at fault, and those of us who thought the forecast was wrong, are a bunch of whingers who aren't fit to lace the boots of those fine gentlemen and ladies of the Met Office....
But I take Bose_X point and in future will be making a report of any issues with the forecast directly with the Met Office.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-x,
I have a pet theory, and after skim-reading this thread I don't think anyone else has mentioned it yet, but it could explain why so many people perceive the TAFs to be inaccurate, but the Met Office stats show they are not.
I am talking about the PROB30s, PROB40s and TEMPOs. IO540 touched on this quite a way back, but I think there is a very specific problem, and that is that these elements of TAFs are too general.
Let's take today's TAF for Bournemouth, for example:
EGHH 070602Z 070716 29013KT 9999 FEW031 BKN048 TEMPO 0716 28015G25KT PROB30 TEMPO 0716 8000 SHRA
Many pilots, especially novices, would look at the PROB30 TEMPO 0716 8000 SHRA, and interpret that as meaning that there could be rain, and associated low visibility, at any point during the day, so they'd stay on the ground.
However, what I would do is look at the rainfall radar, which at the time of writing (just before 0900Z) clearly shows a band of rain to the north and east of Bournemouth. This band, which is associated with the occluded front shown on the Metform 215, is moving south-east, and does not appear to be going anywhere near Bournemouth today.
Based on this, I would bet that there won't be any rain over or to the west of Bournemouth for at least the next 3 hours, and if I was planning a trip to the west, so long as I was happy with the forecast strong winds and the possibility of clouds at 1500 as per the Exeter forecast, I would be ready to launch off right now. On this basis, those posters on this website who are claiming that Met Office TAFs are not accurate probably have reasonable grounds.
When the Met Office look at their stats, they will no doubt say that it was PROB30 TEMPO over a long period. The fact that the rain did not materialise for at least the first part of that period would not mark that forecast out as having been wrong. But if I can, with no more training in meteorology than what is required to scrape through the ATPL theory exams (and, to be honest, I've forgotten most of that anyway!), look at the publicly available Met Office data and forecast that there won't be any rain in Bournemouth for at least a few hours, why can't the Met Office do the same, and either cut out the PROB30 TEMPO, or change its time period to something a bit more specific?
FFF
--------------
I have a pet theory, and after skim-reading this thread I don't think anyone else has mentioned it yet, but it could explain why so many people perceive the TAFs to be inaccurate, but the Met Office stats show they are not.
I am talking about the PROB30s, PROB40s and TEMPOs. IO540 touched on this quite a way back, but I think there is a very specific problem, and that is that these elements of TAFs are too general.
Let's take today's TAF for Bournemouth, for example:
EGHH 070602Z 070716 29013KT 9999 FEW031 BKN048 TEMPO 0716 28015G25KT PROB30 TEMPO 0716 8000 SHRA
Many pilots, especially novices, would look at the PROB30 TEMPO 0716 8000 SHRA, and interpret that as meaning that there could be rain, and associated low visibility, at any point during the day, so they'd stay on the ground.
However, what I would do is look at the rainfall radar, which at the time of writing (just before 0900Z) clearly shows a band of rain to the north and east of Bournemouth. This band, which is associated with the occluded front shown on the Metform 215, is moving south-east, and does not appear to be going anywhere near Bournemouth today.
Based on this, I would bet that there won't be any rain over or to the west of Bournemouth for at least the next 3 hours, and if I was planning a trip to the west, so long as I was happy with the forecast strong winds and the possibility of clouds at 1500 as per the Exeter forecast, I would be ready to launch off right now. On this basis, those posters on this website who are claiming that Met Office TAFs are not accurate probably have reasonable grounds.
When the Met Office look at their stats, they will no doubt say that it was PROB30 TEMPO over a long period. The fact that the rain did not materialise for at least the first part of that period would not mark that forecast out as having been wrong. But if I can, with no more training in meteorology than what is required to scrape through the ATPL theory exams (and, to be honest, I've forgotten most of that anyway!), look at the publicly available Met Office data and forecast that there won't be any rain in Bournemouth for at least a few hours, why can't the Met Office do the same, and either cut out the PROB30 TEMPO, or change its time period to something a bit more specific?
FFF
--------------