Avmet plain language weather

[bushpilot]

I think this Avmet site is a brilliant service.. Dont know why the official Air Services site couldnt write the same software to spell it out.

 

I showed it to a couple of experienced GA pilots recently and one said.. "That's fantastic; I have made a few errors in interpreting those forecasts over the years".

 

But the other said, "....dont show that to any students as they need to learn to do the intepretation themselves".

 

I guess that's true for studying and practising for BAK, MET and NAV exams, but it begs the question why we have to suffer such an archaic approach to passing critical information on to pilots in doing their flight planning.

 

What do others out there think?

 

 

[Tracktop]

I think that it should be shown to students as it is a great learning tool.

 

Read the code that is included then check your answer or just

 

keep refining your knowledge by reading both.

 

Great Job Ian

 

 

[ianboag]

I did it as a training tool of course. Everyone needs fluency in Avmet gibberish - it must be something that makes the sky safer or the regulators wouldn't insist on it :-)

 

 

[ianboag]

I agree completely. Personally I think that figuring these things out is a whole lot easier if the information doesn't have to be translated out of gibberish first. The gibberish adds nothing to the process other than a degree of international standardisation which ensures the AVMET is the same PITA for everyone around the world.

 

 

[JayKay]

Ianboag, Airservices' documents address some of the issues Cficare raised re True/Magnetic directions and height above ground or AMSL when referred to in ARFORs, METARs and TAFs.

 

Would it be possible to add these to the relevant parts of the translator to remove any ambiguity?

 

BTW, congratulations on the top job you've done with it so far.

 

 

[ianboag]

I did some of that in the NZ version after someone made the same points about AMSL/AGL stuff. Real pilots know all that of course - it goes with fluency in gibberish.

 

What's the link where I can find the info? I'm a Kiwi remember. It would be nice if I could find a way to get some $$$ for this :-)

 

 

[JayKay]

Unfortunately, the translator is a TRAINING tool so we have to get it right for those still learning. Real pilots don't need to use it so it makes not difference to them. ;)

 

I'll dig up the references and forward them to you.

 

 

[Ferris]

Hello Ian,

 

Great tool you've developed there. I tried to go into the site a couple of times this afternoon and tonight and it appears to be down. Are we still able to access this site?

 

Regards

 

Ferris:question:

 

 

[ianboag]

Fixed.

 

 

[JayKay]

Ianboag,

 

Here's the info relating to my earlier post ...

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

ARFOR = Area Forecast

 

* Wind: The expected mean wind direction is given in three figures to the nearest ten degrees True

 

* Cloud: Cloud base and tops are given in feet above MSL

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

TAF = Aerodrome Forecast = coded statement of meteorological conditions expected at an aerodrome and within a radius of five nautical miles of the aerodrome reference point

 

* Wind: The wind direction is given in degrees True, rounded to the nearest 10 degrees

 

* Cloud: Cloud height is given as a three-figure group in hundreds of feet above the aerodrome

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

METAR = a routine report of meteorological conditions at an aerodrome

 

* Surface Wind: The wind direction is given in degrees true, rounded to the nearest 10 degrees

 

* Cloud: Cloud height is given as a three-figure group in hundreds of feet above the aerodrome elevation

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Source of info:

 

http://reg.bom.gov.au/general/reg/aviation_ehelp/

 

(you may need to log on with username:bomw0007 and password:aviation)

 

 

[John Brandon]

Users of Ian's Avmet product should bear CAR 120 in mind (just in case). The following is the entry in http://www.raa.asn.au/students/auflinks.html

 

PLAIN ENGLISH CONVERSIONS

 

Ian Boag has produced an excellent, freely available, online, plain English conversion of current ARFOR, METAR and TAF for all Australian ARFOR areas. However pilots must still get the NOTAM from the Airservices site. Also student pilots should be aware that the ability to decode the BOM information will be tested in some of the aviation examinations.

 

Bear in mind that CAR 120( http://www.raa.asn.au/operations/civilact.html#car_120 ) imposes penalties for use of forecasts that were not made with the authority of the Director of Meteorology and it may be that plain English conversions are not authorised by the Director.

 

John Brandon

 

 

[ianboag]

I think it needs to be understood that my page should under no circumstances ever be used by someone who needs to understand anything about today's flying weather.

 

The relevant information for this is available in crystal-clear ICAO-compliant gobbledegook from a BOM/Airservices gibberish page. Come to think of it, you can even find the gibberish off a link on this site - without an Airservices login even.

 

CAR 120 (aka Rule Part 175) has nothing to do with my product. What I have done is just another variant of the non-warranted web page translations produced by Babelfish and the like. The NZ CAA figured that out already with the Kiwi equivalent - they (grumpily?) figured that they couldn't lay the necessity for Rule Part 175 compliance on me.

 

It's sort of like the GPS's that a few of us have in our aircraft. They contain regularly updated (?) non-certified Jeppesen maps that we never use as primary navigational aids because only (the sometimes only slightly out of date) A1 wallpaper is legal for that. We have Garmin x9x's with Jeppesen maps as a form of airborne TV to fill in the boring bits of cross country flight.

 

It's really important that we ensure the regulators who control aviation should be respected for the thankless job they do. They should be left to get on with ensuring our skies are safe. Any unwarranted and unworthy suspicions - eg that they are be protecting sinecure-type jobs by dreaming up and pretending to enforce regulations that occasionally don't make sense - are totally unwarranted. They care about all of us.

 

:-)

 

IB

 

 

[Guest bushcaddy pilot]

Bruce,

 

Try this web site, aleays works for me. Nothing worse than thinking its the PC when it can be the other side having problems.

 

Down for everyone or just me?

 

Good luck

 

Dave

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Me too. (down)

 

I hope that Ian doesnt get upset by some remarks as I would miss this site .

 

I usually compare the plain english with the "gobbledegook" so eventually I should learn something.

 

Phil

 

 

[MrH]

Just checked it & site's all good for me:thumb_up:

 

H

 

 

[Tomo]

Bruce,Try this web site, aleays works for me. Nothing worse than thinking its the PC when it can be the other side having problems.

Down for everyone or just me?

 

Good luck

 

Dave

Why it works for me.... ;)

 

 

[turboplanner]

John - No problems with what you pointed out

 

Ian - You provide a service which can save peoples lives, with a suitable disclaimer

 

We have a percentage of weather fatalities every year, many of these obvious mistakes by the pilot, where the weather forecast was a clear indicator that flying was dangerous.

 

The ARFOR, METAR and TAF forecasts were coded for TELEX which most people on this site have never heard of. It was a keyboard system one step up from the MORSE key, which replicated, at the other end of the line what you keyed in at your end, and was costed on a TRUNK CALL (you've probably never heard of that but read STD basis). So they were very expensive, and everyone used shorthand to save cost, dropping out unnecessary words (a bit like texting).

 

It died out in the mid 1970's when Faxes took over and there was space for plain English communications.

 

When emails took over from faxes, the ability to use plain English has remained, so there is no excuse to be using code from last century, particularly when there can be confusion.

 

The last century codings seem to be supported by people who fly professionally, and regularly to the point where they use forecasts almost daily, and have memorised them,and some of those are born jargon sprouters in any company where they can impress the masses.

 

The ones who don't support them seem to be the people who fly now and again for recreation, and therefore who have a problem with recency, and they also seem to be the ones dying each year.

 

It would seem to be that the ATSB has a clear cause and a clear solution here, and should update the process.

 

 

[ianboag]

Actually the present ICAO-standard pig latin is much newer than that. Prior to (about) the late 60's it was all done with numerical codes. What we have now was released as being a huge improvement. Go figure .......

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ah the old pig latin "Caesar adsum iam forte, Brutus adsum tu"

 

 

[Vev]

Hi John Brandon,

 

Like you, I agree Ian’s site is excellent and I use it weekly... I also appreciate your reminder of our obligations under CAR 120.

 

Personally I think Ian Borg’s Avmet site is more likely to save a life by reducing the probability of misreading an official weather report from the current official system.

 

Whilst I have no idea what it would take, but it would be a wonderful step forward in the interest of safety, if Recreational Aviation Aust could seek dispensation to use simplified plain language weather reports.

 

The RAA and others have done a great job over the years in reducing complexity and making flying safer through a common sense approach, I see this issue as a potential opportunity to do more.

 

I believe there is a reasonable case to challenge the regulators on weather report formats and would like to see the RAA consider leading the way.

 

Regards

 

Jack

 

 

[John Brandon]

Hi John Brandon,Like you, I agree Ian’s site is excellent and I use it weekly... I also appreciate your reminder of our obligations under CAR 120.

 

Personally I think Ian Borg’s Avmet site is more likely to save a life by reducing the probability of misreading an official weather report from the current official system.

 

Whilst I have no idea what it would take, but it would be a wonderful step forward in the interest of safety, if Recreational Aviation Aust could seek dispensation to use simplified plain language weather reports.

 

The RAA and others have done a great job over the years in reducing complexity and making flying safer through a common sense approach, I see this issue as a potential opportunity to do more.

 

I believe there is a reasonable case to challenge the regulators on weather report formats and would like to see the RAA consider leading the way.

 

Regards

 

Jack

Jack, that is a policy decision which is properly a board matter. I suggest those who agree with Jack should present your views via emails to each one of your state representatives. For email addresses see www.raa.asn.au/contact.html.

 

John Brandon

 

 

[JayKay]

In 1983 the Australian government introduced the "Plain English and Simpler Forms Program".

 

27 years later we're still reading vital weather information in code.

 

Who's not following the rules?

 

 

[ianboag]

I'm a 65-year old foreigner. When I started this I had no experience in programming for the Web. I have created what seems to be a reasonably robust AVMET to plain language translator. Noone has paid me anything.

 

One of the reasons I did it was to teach myself PHP. So how hard would it be for AirServices or BOM to do it "properly"?

 

Not that there are any significant bugs in pemet.com.au that I presently know of .....

 

IB

 

 

[Vev]

I'm a 65-year old foreigner. When I started this I had no experience in programming for the Web. I have created what seems to be a reasonably robust AVMET to plain language translator. Noone has paid me anything. One of the reasons I did it was to teach myself PHP. So how hard would it be for AirServices or BOM to do it "properly"?

 

Not that there are any significant bugs in pemet.com.au that I presently know of .....

 

IB

Ian,

 

 

I congratulate and thank you for providing this free service to all us. It’s a very useful and practical site … I have shared your site with a number of friends from all walks of aviation with decades of flying experience and 1000’s of hours. I have yet to come across a pilot that hasn’t thought your site as being a fabulous service and a potential life saver.

 

 

Cheers

 

Jack

 

 

[Vev]

Jack, that is a policy decision which is properly a board matter. I suggest those who agree with Jack should present your views via emails to each one of your state representatives. For email addresses see www.raa.asn.au/contact.html.John Brandon

John B … thankyou for the direction.

 

 

I will be writing to my RAA board members and encourage others to do the same if they believe we should be officially allowed to use plain language weather reports for flight planning.

 

 

Cheers

 

Jack