Unrepresentative ATIS & METARs

[METARHIMS]

Increasingly it would seem METARs are left in AUTO MODE and thus the weather reported and ATIS may not be representative. I’ve noticed this at EDDF and EGLL. Examples are below.

Does anyone care? Does this effect your operational decisions or flight planning? Is the inaccurate reporting of weather observations a issue?

I find it frustrating because it is difficult or impossible to know what is really going on in situations like these (changeable weather conditions, fog patches, convection with light steering winds, etc.).

METAR EDDF 221720Z AUTO 23010KT 160V270 9999 +TSRA BKN///CB 21/14 Q1013 BECMG 30007KT NSW=

METAR COR EGLL 191850Z AUTO 02007KT 340V060 9999 //////CB 15/09 Q1026 NOSIG=

[STBYRUD]

Fair point, I used to know one of the government meteorologists at EDDM - he took pride in accurate reports and predictions, firing off a SPECI or a TAF correction if something wasn't spot on anymore.

That airports like Heathrow or Frankfurt feel that the automatic observation is good enough is indeed odd, it might ve "good enough", but it doesn't seem to be a priority at all.

[parishiltons]

Originally Posted by METARHIMS

Increasingly it would seem METARs are left in AUTO MODE and thus the weather reported and ATIS may not be representative. I’ve noticed this at EDDF and EGLL. Examples are below.

Does anyone care? Does this effect your operational decisions or flight planning? Is the inaccurate reporting of weather observations a issue?

I find it frustrating because it is difficult or impossible to know what is really going on in situations like these (changeable weather conditions, fog patches, convection with light steering winds, etc.).

METAR EDDF 221720Z AUTO 23010KT 160V270 9999 +TSRA BKN///CB 21/14 Q1013 BECMG 30007KT NSW=

METAR COR EGLL 191850Z AUTO 02007KT 340V060 9999 //////CB 15/09 Q1026 NOSIG=

AUTO simply means a machine observation rather than by a human. That's the trend of things and there will be more of it.

The METAR will generally be slightly different to the ATIS because the locations of the observations are different - the met station/s on or adjacent to the airport for METARs vs looking out the tower windows by an ATC for ATIS, and because the times of the observations are different. Weather is dynamic! But what is reported is simply what is observed at the time of reporting. It can be skewed by location/orientation of the instruments/eyes so this should be designed out as far as practicable.

Also not all auto stations can observe all weather parameters - the auto capability gaps indicated, of course, by the slashes.

[METARHIMS]

Originally Posted by parishiltons

AUTO simply means a machine observation rather than by a human. That's the trend of things and there will be more of it.

The METAR will generally be slightly different to the ATIS because the locations of the observations are different - the met station/s on or adjacent to the airport for METARs vs looking out the tower windows by an ATC for ATIS, and because the times of the observations are different. Weather is dynamic! But what is reported is simply what is observed at the time of reporting. It can be skewed by location/orientation of the instruments/eyes so this should be designed out as far as practicable.

Also not all auto stations can observe all weather parameters - the auto capability gaps indicated, of course, by the slashes.

Understood. At some of the busiest airports in the world, in some of the richest countries in the world, cloud height seems like something that would be accurately reported, especially in times of convection. Without accurate weather information it’s difficult to even brief an approach and potential risks. I always thought accurate weather observations were a necessity at busy commercial airports?