SIGMETS - CAN THEY BE MORE CRYPTIC?

[Captain]

Now now, there's no need for cheap shots. The last time I looked NAIPS and the BOM shows the airport name along with it's ICAO code, they've being doing it for a while.Don't get me wrong, I'm not against plain english versions, but in this user pays society we now live in someone will have to bear the costs for system changes.......

Thanks Os.

 

Please don"t take offence if you consider yourself to be a "real" pilot. It's a compliment, I think, and I consider myself to be a real pilot too.

 

You are right about the name and code in the TAF etc and my original gripe was with SIGMETS .... but others here are free to bring in related issues if they wish, however I'm not sure you are right about costs as the BOM have told the RAA Ops Manager at the time that they would and could do it ..... although I concede that if it takes extra time the money has to come from somewhere.

 

My own practice, if both versions were to be available, would be to read them both and use one to cross check that I have absorbed the other and for me it will be a welcome safety assistance .... although I also add that I use the existing system and have been warned when appropriate.

 

I do however have dificulty in accepting the argument that we aren't well enough trained in the interpretation of weather messages. In my view it is not the RAA training system that is behind the times, it is the BOM and their lack of initiative to take a lead on modern practice to offer both versions, and that is hopefully soon to be redressed.

 

Cheers and thanks for your contribution to this thread. Geoff

 

 

[ianboag]

MET gobbledygook

 

Ask yourself this question.

 

If met info was normally communicated in plain English ..... and BOM/Airways/whoever introduced a set of (international standard) codes to make it more concise ... or safer ... or whatever ....

 

Is there anyone one in this forum who would read codes in preference to plain English because it made flying safer or whatever?

 

On the subject of cost, I need a break to laugh.

 

Here in NZ CAA indulge in all sorts of drawn-out dribble to decide simple things. They just introduced a Recreational Pilot Licence to allow old flyers who can't pass a Class 2 medical to continue flying their GA planes 2-up in VFR conditions not over towns. It took ten years and half a forest. They spent about five years deciding whether the long-established practise of running engines past TBO "on-condition" could continue. CAA staff are well-paid so all their navel-gazing come at a high price. Much of what they do involves dreaming up ways that accidents could happen if a whole lot of unlikely events happen to coincide. If they get bored with that they throw resources into tidying up Rules. They aren't really answerable to anyone and their output of useful deliverables is low. "pilot error" seems to figure prominently in the list of accident causes and they haven't found a way to Rule that out of existence yet.

 

I presume CASA are lean and mean and not like this at all ....

 

Anyway. The Perl for a TAF/METAR translator is freely available on the Net. One would be hard-pressed to spend as much as $10k building it into a MET website. Perhaps the Canadians would donate theirs if someone asked .... there would be some minor tweaks but not a lot.

 

As far as plain-language MET is concerned we have to admit that on both sides of the Tasman the regulator isn't listening and doesn't care..

 

IB

 

 

[ianboag]

Have a look at http://avmet.msgs.net.nz/TAFMET_info.pdf and follow your nose.

 

Given time and examples, one could add SIGMETS and ARFOR etc.

 

IB

 

 

[ianboag]

I just got a NAIPS login. Oz "area reports" don't look unlike NZ ones. Hacking my code to handle it would be doable (tedious though). But what is

 

RMK T 27 24 21 19 Q 1007 1006 1005 1005

 

I understand RMK but we don't use ones like this ....

 

 

[ianboag]

Dunno who is interested, but I have been working on the mechanics of AVMET->English translation. You might like to try this ....

 

Go to NAIPS and get an area (or areas) briefing. Copy it to the clipboard (ctl-A, then ctl-C).

 

Browse to http://avmet.msgs.net.nz/ozmet/ (OK OK I know Oz met shouldn't have a .nz address).

 

There's a textbox - put the cursor in it (ie click) then paste your briefing report into it (ctl-V). Then click the 'Translate' button.

 

It's still a work-in-progress but it does TAF/METAR into English with local (for the airfielld) times. I haven't got round to ARFORs or proper decoding of RMKs yet.

 

Cheers IB

 

 

[ossie]

But what isRMK T 27 24 21 19 Q 1007 1006 1005 1005

 

I understand RMK but we don't use ones like this ....

T means Temperature and the Q means QNH

 

That RMK is telling you the forecast temperature and QNH from the beginning of the forecast and then at 3 hourly intervals

 

Simple really....;)

 

 

[skybum]

Aha, the area report is not written-

 

RMK T 27 24 21 19 Q 1007 1006 1005 1005

it is written-

 

RMK T 27 24 21 19 Q 1007 1006 1005 1005

RMK is exactly that, remarks.In this case there are none. FORMAT never changes. It's part of the dance;-)

 

 

[Simonflyer]

On one hand, I think we should all learn to read the forecasts as they are.I have found that decoding them is fast becoming an enjoyable pastime, but i am also all for safety, and if having it in plain english suits most, then thats how it should be.Id hate to think that even one person would go flying in marginal conditions and have a problem because of a misinterpretation..

 

I would say that buying yourself a copy of the AIP is money well worth it if you really do want to know more about all forecasts..

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's not a question of "suiting" people, its the lower level of safety where human factors cause an important safety clue is missed because it is jargon developed for the Telex machines of last century, and not in plain English.

 

It's not a question of practicality for Airservices - I've typed this in a fraction of the time it would take me to code up a Telex.

 

And it's not a matter of referring to the AIP. We've seen plenty of examples of code where there is no published key to interpret it.

 

And we know pilots have died as a direct result of the present out of date system.

 

It's like establishing a sheep flock size by counting the number of feet.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's easy to become patronising, but just remember you may get the message right hundreds of times, but only have to overlook something once to finish up in the side of a hill.

 

I quoted this some time back:

 

"I found one the other day with BILLY in it. Billy Goat?"

 

Those of you who've been telling us how good you are - decipher this!

 

 

[ossie]

It's not a question of "suiting" people, its the lower level of safety where human factors cause an important safety clue is missed because it is jargon developed for the Telex machines of last century, and not in plain English.It's not a question of practicality for Airservices - I've typed this in a fraction of the time it would take me to code up a Telex.

 

And it's not a matter of referring to the AIP. We've seen plenty of examples of code where there is no published key to interpret it.

 

And we know pilots have died as a direct result of the present out of date system.

 

It's like establishing a sheep flock size by counting the number of feet.

Some bold statements there turboplanner, I'm sure a few here would like to see some of those examples ?

 

Cheers

 

Os

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well that's pretty straightforward, but as I recall it was advancing at about 15 knots

 

 

[ossie]

Well that's pretty straightforward, but as I recall it was advancing at about 15 knots

Yeah your right it was moving at around 15kts, but it's all over now.......

 

Tropical Cyclone Billy Impacts

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well, everyone's welcome to have a laugh at my expense - Ossie's information is dated around December 20, and I posted on december 31, so I probably would have flown straight into it.....however, it does make my point.

 

 

[ossie]

Well, everyone's welcome to have a laugh at my expense - Ossie's information is dated around December 20, and I posted on december 31, so I probably would have flown straight into it.....however, it does make my point.

Wow them tanks in your Jab must be big, on the 31st Dec BILLY was a long way off the coast..........

 

however, it does make my point

............no, not sure that I agree !! Anyone flying up there at that time would have certainly been aware of BILLY, along with those who watch the evening news.With all due respect turboplanner, and I sincerely mean that, the problem is unless one's profession is in aviation there seems to be an endless list of acronyms. Yes, I agree that list appears to be longer than any other industry, but really it's no different.

 

To post up a one liner like -

 

"I found one the other day with BILLY in it. Billy Goat?"Those of you who've been telling us how good you are - decipher this!

"and not give the whole picture is irresponsible in my opinion. Why, because BILLY was not a code or acronym at all, and there are many young and not so young pilots struggling to decipher all the information, then read this and throw their arms up and say "no not another damn coded message I have to learn".

 

Maybe the best approach here would have been -

 

"Hey guys I seen "BILLY" in a WX message (post up that message) the other day, it refers to a cyclone up in the north west. Check out all the WX messages, the BOM site and the news for the info"

 

Australia may not follow ICAO to the letter, but go look at some other countries AIP's and compare the content, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how well we do it in this country.

 

No, I don't work or ever have worked for AsA or CASA or the BOM, and I too struggled with the so called "jargon" when I started out, but like all conscientious young pilots I read through all the documentation and began to understand why and yep, I'm still learning.

 

Hope this is taken in the right context.

 

Cheers

 

Os

 

 

[turboplanner]

It is Os, but we need to move on when newer, simpler, and safer technology comes along.

 

These codes were designed for the Telex machines of the fifties.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Well done fellas, and how about a hearty "Well done and thanks" to Mick and RAAus. This is yet further evidece that the RAAus staff are worth their weight in rockinghorse s#!t.

 

 

[Yenn]

This is a bit like photography. I studied photography for years and understand all about it, only to find that since we have gone digital any simple person can understand it as well as I can.

 

I feel XXXXed off, and that I think is what makes people want all the jargon.

 

Simplify it and make it safer, in the same way that glass displays have made instrument flying easier.

 

 

[JayKay]

If you struggle reading a METAR, TAF or SIGMET, stick to flying on a CAVOK day. (CAVOK = Ceiling And Visibility OKay if you needed help interpreting that).

Hi tmpffisch,

 

I can't find where you got your Australian definition for CAVOK. I looked it up in the AIP Book (4 June 2009, Gen 2.2, Definitions and Abbreviations, Item 2. General And Meteorological Abbreviations) and it says ...

 

CAVOK = Visibility, cloud and present weather better than prescribed values or conditions

 

So to interpret what 'OK' means in your definition you'd first have to know the 'prescribed values or conditions', and if they were bad, then 'OK' might not mean 'GOOD'.

 

I can't find the definition for CAVOK on the BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) website and it appears that the BOM does not use the CAVOK acronym in its weather forecasts.

 

Internationally, CAVOK is generally used when the following conditions apply:

 

(1) there are no clouds below 5000 feet above aerodrome level (AAL) or minimum sector altitude (whichever is higher) and no cumulonimbus or towering cumulus;

 

(2) visibility is at least 10 kilometres (6 statute miles); and

 

(3) no current or forecast significant weather such as precipitation, thunderstorms, shallow fog or low drifting snow.

 

however even the above definition has been challenged (see: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/met/divmtg/wp/wp020_en.pdf )

 

Not to mention general aviation related acronyms which have different meanings depending on which publication they appear in. Some examples I've found starting with the letter "A" include ...

 

AD = Aerodrome (ICAO/AIP)

 

AD = Airworthiness Directive (CASR Part 39)

 

ADS = The address (when this abbreviation is used to request a repetition, the question (IMI) precedes the abbreviation, eg IMI ADS) (to be used in AFS as a procedure signal) (ICAO/AIP)

 

ADS = Automatic Dependent Surveillance (AIP/ICAO)

 

AFM = Aircraft Flight Manual (CAR 1988)

 

AFM = Yes, affirm, affirmative, that is correct (AIS)

 

AH = After hours (AIS)

 

AH = Artificial Horizon

 

ALA = Aircraft Landing Area (for purpose of CAR 1988 92(1)(d)) (AIP)

 

ALA = Alighting area (ICAO)

 

ALTN = Alternate, Alternating (light alternates in colour) (AIS)

 

ALTN = Alternate (aerodrome) (AIS)

 

AOC = Aerodrome Obstacle Chart (followed by name/title) (AIS/AIP)

 

AOC = Air Operators Certificate (CASR Part 119)

 

APV = Approach with Vertical Guidance

 

APV = Approve, Approved, Approval (AIS)

 

ARC = Advance Regulatory Change (legislative change project) (CASA)

 

ARC = Area Chart (ICAO/AIP)

 

ARM = Airspace Risk Model (ICAO/CASA)

 

ARM = Aircraft Recovery Manual (WATOG)

 

ARP = Aerodrome reference point (ICAO/AIP)

 

ARP = Air-Report (message type designator) (ICAO/AIP)

 

AS = Altostratus (meteorological) (ICAO/AIP)

 

AS = Australian Standard

 

ASE = Airborne Support Equipment (WATOG)

 

ASE = Altimetry System Error (ICAO/AIP)

 

ASI = Air Speed Indicatort

 

ASI = Aviation Safety Index

 

ATA = Actual Time of Arrival (AIS)

 

ATA = Air Transport Association

 

ATO = Aviation Testing Officer

 

ATO = Aviation Training Organisation

 

There are 931 abbreviations listed in the AIP Book alone and 1524 on the CASA website. Neither of these lists include further abbreviations which are specific to the ERSA publication.

 

So, if the use of acronyms facilitates the accurate and quick dissemination of safety related information then I for one consider myself a failure amongst mental giants.

 

JayKay

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good Post JayKay

 

This earlier post from Captain seemed to sum up the democratic situation.

 

"The coded message could then also be given for those that feel it best suits them, just like they can still choose to use a sextant instead of a GPS."

 

As well as plain English downloads, I would like to see hazards emphasised, to make it easier for pilots who only fly occasionally, and may well miss the key word in the rush of preparation.

 

 

[GraemeK]

I can't find the definition for CAVOK on the BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) website and it appears that the BOM does not use the CAVOK acronym in its weather forecasts.

Used quite often - here's the current TAF for YDLQ f'rinstance:

 

TAF YDLQ 050055Z 0502/0514 20012KT CAVOK RMK T 12 13 08 05 Q 1022 1021 1021 1022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also see it quite often in the Area 30 ARFOR for Kilmore Gap - nice and succinct and, as you say, conveys a whole lot of information. Much easier to quickly interpret than "no clouds below 5000 feet above aerodrome level (AAL) or minimum sector altitude (whichever is higher) and no cumulonimbus or towering cumulus, visibility is at least 10 kilometres (6 statute miles) and no current or forecast significant weather such as precipitation, thunderstorms, shallow fog or low drifting snow" IMHO!

 

 

[turboplanner]

...or Bogong Moth swarms or red dust as big as dog balls, or....maybe it would just say "no restrictions"

 

 

[JayKay]

Used quite often - here's the current TAF for YDLQ f'rinstance:

 

TAF YDLQ 050055Z 0502/0514 20012KT CAVOK RMK T 12 13 08 05 Q 1022 1021 1021 1022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also see it quite often in the Area 30 ARFOR for Kilmore Gap - nice and succinct and, as you say, conveys a whole lot of information. Much easier to quickly interpret than "no clouds below 5000 feet above aerodrome level (AAL) or minimum sector altitude (whichever is higher) and no cumulonimbus or towering cumulus, visibility is at least 10 kilometres (6 statute miles) and no current or forecast significant weather such as precipitation, thunderstorms, shallow fog or low drifting snow" IMHO!

Hi GraemeK,

 

Please help me out here. The official definition for CAVOK in Australia is "Visibility, cloud and present weather better than prescribed values or conditions".

 

Based on the example TAF you give, where are the "prescribed values or conditions"? and how in that example would you interpret or decode them?

 

I genuinely don't know and am seeking knowledge.

 

Thanks in anticipation,

 

JayKay

 

 

[GraemeK]

Hi JayKay

 

Good question - I'd always just accepted the definition of CAVOK as per your definition above, without going back to source.

 

The BOM defines CAVOK as just "Cloud and Visibility OK" which is not particularly helpful to us!

 

The AIP (AIP GEN 2.2) defines CAVOK in Australia as "Visibility, cloud and present weather better than prescribed values or conditions", again not much of a help!

 

To get to nub of it you need to go to AIP GEN 3.5 4.4.1g which pretty much defines it as per your earlier post, ie vis>10km, no cloud < 5000ft, no TCU, no CB, no significant weather.

 

Makes it a bit tough when you have to search that hard I guess - why couldn't the BOM and both bits of the AIP use a consistent definition? I suppose the answer is that if the ICAO changed their definition, then we'd only have to change it in one place - but there's surely gotta be a better way!

 

 

[JayKay]

Makes it a bit tough when you have to search that hard I guess - why couldn't the BOM and both bits of the AIP use a consistent definition? I suppose the answer is that if the ICAO changed their definition, then we'd only have to change it in one place - but there's surely gotta be a better way!

Hi GraemeK,

 

Thanks for the explanation. I've made a study of aviation acronyms for a while now (only because I like to understand what I'm reading) and find that unless I'm using them regularly, I start mixing up or guessing their meanings. It's like using another language - if you don't use it regularly then you resort to guessing word meanings within their written context and often guess wrongly.

 

Just my experience.

 

JayKay