The Area Forecast is bidding us a ta-ta...

[drgwentzel]

Aviators,

I read an article in AOPA magazine the other day that disseminated information how the Area Forecast (FA) will make a graceful exit on December 31, 2015 from our pre-flight planning toolbox. At first I expected to be shocked, appalled or sad, but after a very immediate second thought, I threw my arms in the air and said, “Hallelujah!”

I have to be honest…I hate the Area Forecast. I would always glaze over when a flight service specialist would read me that information during a briefing. Worse was when I would bring up the textural description of this forecast on DUATS. I just couldn't scroll that report off the screen fast enough.

So, what’s not to like?

Well, for one thing it's a forecast that represents a very large multi-state swath of turf and sky and therefore it is just not specific enough to provide any utility or safety to my flying.

Personally, I am concerned with the very specific weather, in the specific corridors I will be flying through. I can interpolate the big picture from the abundant METAR’s and TAF’s along the route. I can also see the important weather makers and their movements on the graphical prognostic charts, graphical NexRad Radar, graphical AIRMET’s and graphical SIGMET’s easily obtained on www.aviationweather.gov/adds. If my destination airport doesn’t have a TAF, then I can always find several TAF’s at airports surrounding my destination and can interpolate the forecast weather where I need it. That has always proven very accurate for me.

Speaking of graphical, that brings me to my next point: I also detest the Area Forecast (FA) because it’s text; I am forced to picture what’s-going-on-where in my head, just like the textural AIRMET's AND SIGMET's. They are almost impossible to visualize accurately. I have a headache and just stop reading it before I even finish its account, and it’s just too dang vague.

So, goodbye, farewell, cheerio my old friend (FA), and please bring along the textural SIGMET’s, AIRMET’s, Flightwatch, and that long, unending list of unlighted towers, cranes and closed taxiway NOTAM's with you…and watch that the door doesn’t hit you in the arse on your way out.


Gene Wentzel, CFII

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Area forecast is the only one with tops, no other official WX report contains them, I hope they add to TAFs.

 

[DeckardTrinity]

I agree Scott... on a recent trip down through eastern NC, I encountered clouds at about the 5000' level that were not depicted on any TAF or METAR, mainly because the area does not have adequate coverage. The FA was the only product that made mention of the possibility of this broken layer, and sure enough, it occurred right in the middle of this "black hole" coverage area!

 

[eetrojan]

By the way, this is not a wise choice in my professional opinion. TAFs are a point forecast and are not valid beyond the 5SM radius that defines the terminal area. To suggest that the weather forecast at one airport is identical to the weather at an airport 30 miles away is potentially dangerous. Sometimes the weather is very homogeneous, but the terrain and local environment can create different weather in between two airports.

Hi Scott, what do you recommend doing instead? Joe

 

[MooneyDriver78]

There are no plans, nor does it make sense to add a forecast for tops to TAFs since they are considered a point forecast. The new GFA will have a tops and bases forecast. How that will be depicted is what is being designed.

If that's the case, why does the skew-t app allow you enter an airport id?
I hope they also stop giving me only the highest tops, yes I know thunderstorms have tops above 40,000'. They don't mention the other tops. It would be nice to have verbiage like broken layer tops 6500, with convective activity.....
The trouble with the skew-t is it's only 11 hr forecast, and without knowing how dry the air is, can't be sure even with temp=dew pt you can be sure there will be clouds or the type (I'm not a skew t expert).

 

[kgruber]

Let's hope they drop the "skew-t" diagram as well, and replace it with something user friendly. Something you don't have to have a college degree to comprehend.


Kind of like DOS 3 to Windows.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Not true. The RAP forecast goes out to 18 hours and using the GFS model you can go out to 16 days (the NOAA tool limits the GFS to 5 days). Keep in mind that the temp=dewpoint method isn't a reliable way to determine the presence or absence of clouds in all cases. It works well for warm stratus clouds. Most clouds during the spring, summer and fall are created through convection and the temp=dewpoint method quickly falls apart. Also, the dewpoint is a bad way to measure saturation when the temps are colder (remember those limitations I mentioned in the post above?)

The rucsoundings.noaa link only seem to give 12 hrs, can you post link to GFS and RAP tools?

 

[drgwentzel]

You are referring to this AOPA article. Just to be clear, the article states that the area forecast (FA) will be discontinued in the second half of 2016, not on December 31, 2015. This change was originally announced in this Public Information Statement back on June 26, 2014. Even in this announcement it stated that a replacement was targeted for early 2015 (that made me chuckle when I read that).

Hmmm...I guess I read "2nd half of 2016" as "2nd have of 2015". My apologies. I should do more fact checking.

I can't wait for the new product though!

Gene Wentzel, CFII

 

[drgwentzel]

By the way, this is not a wise choice in my professional opinion. TAFs are a point forecast and are not valid beyond the 5SM radius that defines the terminal area. To suggest that the weather forecast at one airport is identical to the weather at an airport 30 miles away is potentially dangerous. Sometimes the weather is very homogeneous, but the terrain and local environment can create different weather in between two airports.

All true Scott, but no one mentioned absolutes and no one should assume *identical* weather forecasts from one ap to another. I hope some basic common sense would occur to most properly trained pilots in such a situation. I did say I could *interpolate*, not just take one TAF and paste it on an airport 30 miles away, but your point is indeed well taken.

I don't know which is worse though...using 2 or 3 TAF's that surround an ap that doesn't have a TAF to interpolate the weather, or using a generalized FA forecast covering a 3 or 4 state region and paste it onto any or all ap's in that region to get a handle on the wx picture at those focused points.

Gene Wentzel, CFII

 

[drgwentzel]

Hi Scott, what do you recommend doing instead? Joe

Here is another thought...what product do we use for the 1, 2 3 rule in IFR flight planning and filing if our destination doesn't have a TAF?

Gene

 

[MAKG1]

All true Scott, but no one mentioned absolutes and one should assume *identical* weather forecasts from one ap to another. I hope some basic common sense would occur to most properly trained pilots in such a situation. I did say I could *interpolate*, not just take one TAF and paste it on an airport 30 miles away, but your point is indeed well taken.

I don't know which is worse though...using 2 or 3 TAF's that surround an ap that doesn't have a TAF to interpolate the weather, or using a generalized FA forecast covering a 3 or 4 state region and paste it onto any or all ap's in that region to get a handle on the wx picture at those focused points.

Gene Wentzel, CFII

The FA is broken up into several smaller regions.

And there can very easily be weather in between TAFs, especially around large bodies of water or significant terrain.

Example: there is no TAF that even gets close for Half Moon Bay (KHAF), even though it is just outside the Class B surface area for San Francisco. If you go there on a nice summer day forecast to remain clear all day (from the KSFO TAF), you're very likely to get an unpleasant surprise. If you're a VFR only pilot, you're not likely to make it.

The FA would show ceilings or IFR for central California coastal regions.

Have you been reading more than they synopsis? There is more to an FA than that.

I'm looking forward to the graphical replacement, but claiming that the FA is useless is just not true.

 

[drgwentzel]

I've trained thousands of pilots personally over the last 15+ years in aviation weather and I know there are many pilots out there that use your method to interpolate between TAF sites. Some of these pilots have told me stories that will give you chills because they used the TAFs beyond their designed limitations. TAFs should be used only for what they are intended for...weather conditions significant to aviation AT the airport at the time of your proposed arrival or departure.

Here's an example, I was looking to land at Rock Hill, SC (KUZA). The closest TAF is 15 miles to the north at Charlotte Douglas Airport (KCLT). Here's the TAF for Charlotte.

Notice that good VFR conditions prevail in the morning. At 14Z, that was a pretty darn good forecast for Charlotte as you can see the observation here in ForeFlight.

But, 15 miles south at KUZA, that forecast doesn't apply and was way off base and not even close to what was forecast at the closest TAF. The common sense thing here is don't use TAFs as if they are an area forecast...they are not. Eventually you will get burned by making that false assumption.

Scott,

No one could argue with anything you are saying. What you are saying is, smart, conservative and true. I don't think we have any major difference of opinion.

What I'm saying is, I would never depend on one TAF to know if my passengers and I will be safe in any long flight. I believe common sense was mentioned and I would have reviewed several TAF's, many METAR's, the prog charts, SIGMET's, AIRMET's, PIREP's and NEXRAD. I always plan an *out* based on that information.

Moreover, you just said a large VFR airport was only 15 miles away, so if I got to KUZA and found the wx described, I would hope my planning allowed me to fly for 15 more miles to VFR wx.

One last thing...can you explain, under the circumstances you just showed us, what *ah ha!* moment the FA forecast would have revealed to us concerning the specific wx at KUZA that day?

In conclusion, I guess my only point, as it relates to me, is that I've never found any *oh, wow! Thank God I looked at this* information in an Area Forecast. Maybe I just don't use it right.

Gene