Weather Services: Why so many abbreviations?

[VWGhiaBob]

Like many pilots, I use "all available" sources of information for trips. One area that continually frustrates me is needing to know hundreds of abbreviations to read all the forecasts.

As a computer guy, I'm guessing this dates back to the stone age in computing when bandwidth and storage were so expensive that we had no choice. I remember weather reports in the 1970's being printed on rolling computer paper with punch holes, using all the same abbreviations. In the "good old days", we understood that getting this information at all was flat-out amazing. So we gladly dealt with the abbreviations and difficult to read report.

This is not necessary in 2015 and is almost laughable if it were not for the negative impact on safety and our time. How many of us are wasting time memorizing unnecessary abbreviations for tests? How many of us take time when preparing for a flight to look up abbreviations we have long forgotten?

Again, the abbreviations from AIRMET's to TAF's to SIGMET's are soooo un unnecessary in 2015.

Apart from standalone conversion programs, is anyone working on fixing this?

Or am I alone in having this concern?

Example...

WVAK01 PAWU 300600​

PAZA SIGMET I1 VALID 300600/301200 PAWUPAZA​

ANCHORAGE FIR VA ERUPTION MT PAVLOF PSN N5542 W16189 VA CLD OBS AT​

0600Z WI N5600 W16528 - N5617 W16623 - N5707 W16806 - N5812 W16907 - N5858 W16908 -​

N5916 W16730 - N5851​

W16437 - N5804 W16303 - N5814 W16128 - N5760 W15957 - N5701 W15932 - N5614 W16132 -​

N5551 W16422 - N5600 W16528 SFC/FL300 NC FCST 1200Z VA CLD APRX N5552 W16615 -​

N5618 W16733 - N5648 W16733 - N5718 W16757 - N5746 W16728 - N5804 W16602 - N5834​

W16341 - N5910 W16117 - N5906 W15813 - N5810 W15700 - N5633 W15656 - N5556 W15852 -​

N5524 W16224 - N5531 W16436 - N5552 W16615 SFC/FL180 MOV E 5KT AND APRX N5540​

W16459 - N5556 W16604 - N5644 W16653 - N5742 W16954 - N5857 W17155 - N5938 W17207 -​

N6101 W17028 - N6152 W16748 - N6131 W16306 - N6029 W16046 - N5930 W15952 - N5753​

W16104 - N5636 W16255 - N5546 W16359 - N5540 W16459 - N5540 W16459 FL180/300 MOV N​

10KT​

Figure

 

[docmirror]

In the 1950s-70s, these weather codes were sent out over a very low bandwidth(70-300 BAUD rate) comms channel. Every character was costly, so to reduce costs, and transmission time, they were heavily abbreviated.

The current system is still done that way because it's run by the feds, and they are both clueless, and grossly incompetent.

 

[EdFred]

You're alone.

Volcanic Ash Cloud Observed times/locations....

Most of the gobbledy gook in there is lat/long.

 

[ralarcon]

In the 1950s-70s, these weather codes were sent out over a very low bandwidth(70-300 BAUD rate) comms channel. Every character was costly, so to reduce costs, and transmission time, they were heavily abbreviated.

The current system is still done that way because it's run by the feds, and they are both clueless, and grossly incompetent.

Cheers

 

[Rigged4Flight]

You're absolutely not alone in this. There is no good or even sane reason for dragging this arcane and unnecessarily confusing collection of bastardized multilingual words and abbreviations into the 21st century. It isn't necessary, and as you pointed out, it is a detriment to safety.

 

[Graueradler]

I think it predates the technology described and goes back to telex.

 

[docmirror]

About 4 years ago, during one of my prev BFRs the CFI got out a printed copy of those long-winded AIRMETs, and TAFs and said; 'now lets have a look at this forecast and let me know what's in here'. I stopped him and said; 'Really? We are going waste time on this, when I can look this up on my phone and get the plain language translation in about 20 seconds?'

I don't use that CFI anymore.

 

[ahkahn]

That's why I rolled my eyes every time my CFI and the DPE brought it up. Can I translate it, sure, but do I care to? Heck no.

It's archaic, pointless, and potentially dangerous. I would rather see a comprehendable translation than a confusing abbreviation.

The abbreviated weather bad-asses in the world (yeah, you know who you are!) fall into the same boat with me as the "command line guys" in the IT/networking world... it's the 2010's guys!

 

[ahkahn]

About 4 years ago, during one of my prev BFRs the CFI got out a printed copy of those long-winded AIRMETs, and TAFs and said; 'now lets have a look at this forecast and let me know what's in here'. I stopped him and said; 'Really? We are going waste time on this, when I can look this up on my phone and get the plain language translation in about 20 seconds?'

I don't use that CFI anymore.

Lol.. that would have sent me through the roof. What a tool.

 

[docmirror]

I use CLI for many things in my job which are not capable in a GUI or 'translated' method. Most of root level work is still done in CLI because the same thing can't be done via a GUI or 'translated' method, as is the case with AIRMETs.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

I use CLI for many things in my job which are not capable in a GUI or 'translated' method. Most of root level work is still done in CLI because the same thing can't be done via a GUI or 'translated' method, as is the case with AIRMETs.

why would a pilot need a TAF or other weather report in a raw version when all doubt/confusion as to what it says could be provided in a plain English version? I'm talking about a pilot doing normal pilot planning, which is the context of this thread. Which version would lend itself to a safer and more understandable product?

 

[Seanaldinho]

metars aren't exactly tough to read...

Yes it is outdated and yes it should be updated, but it is available in plain english. You should still be able to read the metar though.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Sounds like I'm NOT alone!

I am currently studying for IFR. I consider it a complete waste of my time to learn to code all the different types of reports. I dread the IFR DPE asking me to decode a complex WX report and then failing me because I don't understand some obscure code that could just as easily be in English.

So the question is not whether or not I can learn and memorize all the codes. I'm a smart guy. The questions are:

1) Would there have been a better use of my time to learn something more complex and useful than a rote list of abbreviations? Answer: Yes.

2) Will I remember those abbreviations on-demand 3 years from now, long after my IFR exam? Answer: No

3) When I forget the abbreviations, in every case, will I really take time to pull out my books to figure out what the abbreviations are telling me? Answer: Ask me in private!

metars aren't exactly tough to read...

Yes it is outdated and yes it should be updated, but it is available in plain english. You should still be able to read the metar though.

 

[exncsurfer]

I'm with you.

Characters are cheap these days, use them.

For example the winds aloft translation silliness, to save one digit! (adding 50 to the direction and subtracting 100 from the speed) Really? Give the wind speed another digit already!

 

[jordane93]

metars aren't exactly tough to read...

Yes it is outdated and yes it should be updated, but it is available in plain english. You should still be able to read the metar though.

This. It's really not that hard to read a TAF or METAR

 

[Unbeliever]

I can scan METARs and TAFs a lot faster in abbreviated form than plain language. The information density is much better than plain language.

--Carlos V.

 

[bobmrg]

Sounds like I'm NOT alone!

I am currently studying for IFR. I consider it a complete waste of my time to learn to code all the different types of reports. I dread the IFR DPE asking me to decode a complex WX report and then failing me because I don't understand some obscure code that could just as easily be in English.

So the question is not whether or not I can learn and memorize all the codes. I'm a smart guy. The questions are:

1) Would there have been a better use of my time to learn something more complex and useful than a rote list of abbreviations? Answer: Yes.

2) Will I remember those abbreviations on-demand 3 years from now, long after my IFR exam? Answer: No



3) When I forget the abbreviations, in every case, will I really take time to pull out my books to figure out what the abbreviations are telling me? Answer: Ask me in private!

Just about everything you guys are moaning about is available in graphic form. Go to www.aviationweather.gov/adds. There are very few reports or forecasts that do not have a plain-English option.



Bob Gardner

 

[exncsurfer]

Right, its available, buy why expect people to continue to memorize the cryptic forms?(for exams etc.) I think that is the OP's point here.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Right, its available, buy why expect people to continue to memorize the cryptic forms?(for exams etc.) I think that is the OP's point here.

Yes...that's my point exactly. It takes considerable effort to learn the different abbreviation "languages". Doing so IMHO is a complete waste of time that could be better spent studying safety concepts.

 

[docmirror]

why would a pilot need a TAF or other weather report in a raw version when all doubt/confusion as to what it says could be provided in a plain English version? I'm talking about a pilot doing normal pilot planning, which is the context of this thread. Which version would lend itself to a safer and more understandable product?

Um - why are you asking me why? I didn't advise, or advocate getting a TAF or AIRMET in gobbledegook, I just wrote, and you quoted that I use CLI in my job where the GUI wasn't sufficient. In my prev post I think I made it clear that I wasn't an advocate of the raw version. If that wasn't clear: I am not an advocate of the raw(abbreviated) version.

 

[docmirror]

Just about everything you guys are moaning about is available in graphic form. Go to www.aviationweather.gov/adds. There are very few reports or forecasts that do not have a plain-English option.

Bob Gardner

This was my point to the CFI who wanted to go over this stuff in raw format, like he was tearing the sheet off an old teletype. If you want me to know this stuff to get a signature in my logbook saying I'm safe for flight - WTF? It's about 3 clicks away, or one phone call. I'm moaning because a CFI thought it was a suitable requirement that I know that shilt.

 

[weirdjim]

Let me tell you why with a corollary discussion I had with OK City a few years ago.

I was going through an FAA approval process. One of the documents I had to file was an absolute original copy of another document. Both took about an hour to complete and required a ($$) notarized signature.

I asked one of my friends in that office (yes, some of the Feds can be downright friendly if you try) why the duplicate paperwork. The honest to God answer was, "That copy is handled and filed by old Sally, and once she retires we will be able to get rid of it."

Evidently we have an old Sally or old Billy somewhere in the weather department whose job it is to code perfectly good verbose reports into incomprehensible code and once they retire we will be able to bring the system kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.

Jim

 

[EdFred]

On the rare occasions I've looked at the dumbed down version of METARs and TAFs it's taken me longer to read them than it does to quickly look at the coded version and process it.

 

[neilki]

@cowboy..
Once again, someone who thinks they know more than their CFI..
Rest assured, you're not alone in considering this format archaic, however, we work to a prescribed set of standards, and you WILL be tested on them. The CFI you so smartly 'sacked' was helping you pass your practical test. A (burning) hoop perhaps, but a DPE has every right to ask you to decode one, and "those are SO 1940's" will get you leaving with a piece of paper you REALLY don't want.

 

[petrolero]

AND WHY ALL CAPS?

This stuff is an anachronism and needs to be updated. Modernize NOTAMs too while we're at it.

The feds throw a mess of semi-intelligible crap at us and then wonder why pilots either don't read it or miss things.

Private companies like ForeFlight, Hilton, and Garmin and Lockheed-Martin Flight Service have provided admirable examples of how these products could be modernized. But as long as this stuff remains in FAA hands it will lag behind modernity.


.

 

[gitmo234]

https://www.1800wxbrief.com/Website/login does a fair job of throwing stuff together in both forms.

The DPE on my checkride told me I should know how to read the jumble (and I did) but I'd be an idiot to not translate it and we used translated methods.

I see it (and here comes the 900 page thread with this statement) as a potential safety hazard. I'm not going to look at all sorts of jumble and interpret it with 90% confidence, when I can translate it and have 99% confidence.

Now for those who will "what if" the situation to death about battery failure, internet outage, and any other dream scenario so you can feel you have the right answer... when all that isnt available, I can always look up what I dont know to double check...a book, knee pad, etc.

weirdjim - similar to my office. I had to almost shout to get my employees to go digital because of "what if the internet crashes" or some other horse****. We have backups. Getting my landing permit for military posts.... I have one on hold because my signature was in blue ink but the date was not, so I have to re-sign and also date in blue

 

[petrolero]

https://www.1800wxbrief.com/Website/login does a fair job of throwing stuff together in both forms.

The DPE on my checkride told me I should know how to read the jumble (and I did) but I'd be an idiot to not translate it and we used translated methods.

I see it (and here comes the 900 page thread with this statement) as a potential safety hazard. I'm not going to look at all sorts of jumble and interpret it with 90% confidence, when I can translate it and have 99% confidence.

Agree.

My IR DPE didn't blame me one little bit for doing as much of my work on the ipad with FF as possible. Tired of being expected to know everything pertinent to flight and then being handed the aviation equivalent of a mega word-search puzzle.

 

[docmirror]

At some point, it becomes 'stump the chump'. I got DZ for drizzle, but missed PL for snow pellets. Sue me.

 

[oldShar]

AND WHY ALL CAPS?


.

Cause that's all teletypes had to work with

-- another case of habits die hard

 

[petrolero]

Cause that's all teletypes had to work with

-- another case of habits die hard

Egg Zachary.

 

[bobmrg]

AND WHY ALL CAPS?

This stuff is an anachronism and needs to be updated. Modernize NOTAMs too while we're at it.

The feds throw a mess of semi-intelligible crap at us and then wonder why pilots either don't read it or miss things.

Private companies like ForeFlight, Hilton, and Garmin and Lockheed-Martin Flight Service have provided admirable examples of how these products could be modernized. But as long as this stuff remains in FAA hands it will lag behind modernity.


.

Why the distinction? LockMart IS the FAA, for all practical purposes.

Bob Gardner

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Well said. All CAPS goes back - again - to early computers which could only handle CAPS...teletype, pre ASCI systems. It's really jaw dropping this practice is still used today.

It's a well known fact that all CAPS decreases reading comprehension. I'm sure someone will chime in, "Well I can read all CAPS, so there's no problem for anyone else," just like the 2nd post who knew the SIGMET was about volcanoes.

That's NOT the point. The point is the effort that continues in 2015 into learning a complex coding system is a waste of brain power. I'm very impressed you can read all CAP's...but I bet if I gave you 10 pages and then a comprehension test, you'd do better without all CAPS.

I agree with the post above with kudos to Foreflight, Lockheed Martin, and others who are at least trying to fix this problem.

AND WHY ALL CAPS?

This stuff is an anachronism and needs to be updated. Modernize NOTAMs too while we're at it.

The feds throw a mess of semi-intelligible crap at us and then wonder why pilots either don't read it or miss things.

Private companies like ForeFlight, Hilton, and Garmin and Lockheed-Martin Flight Service have provided admirable examples of how these products could be modernized. But as long as this stuff remains in FAA hands it will lag behind modernity.


.

 

[nddons]

Sounds like I'm NOT alone!

I am currently studying for IFR. I consider it a complete waste of my time to learn to code all the different types of reports. I dread the IFR DPE asking me to decode a complex WX report and then failing me because I don't understand some obscure code that could just as easily be in English.

So the question is not whether or not I can learn and memorize all the codes. I'm a smart guy. The questions are:

1) Would there have been a better use of my time to learn something more complex and useful than a rote list of abbreviations? Answer: Yes.

2) Will I remember those abbreviations on-demand 3 years from now, long after my IFR exam? Answer: No

3) When I forget the abbreviations, in every case, will I really take time to pull out my books to figure out what the abbreviations are telling me? Answer: Ask me in private!

All good points. However, I haven't seen NOTAMS in plain English, and those are really important when planning an IFR flight. I'd still study the notams around your local airport and a destination airport, and really try to sift through the important ones, while ignoring the inclination to ignore the ones you just don't understand. Some of them could be life-(or checkride-) savers.

 

[Brad Z]

FWIW- I don't recall seeing a plain English translated version of the METARs from my XM weather on my Garmin 530. Maybe some of the other on-board weather devices do it, but not the 430/530.

 

[Pilawt]

I still use the old teletype sky cover symbols in my own weather shorthand. This is the language I speak:

Though I've never gotten completely comfortable with all the new "international" abbreviations, my eye still processes a coded METAR faster than a plain-text version of the same report.

 

[jordane93]

my eye still processes a coded METAR faster than a plain-text version of the same report.

Same for me

 

[petrolero]

Same for me

METARs and TAFs are relatively easy. But an AIRMET or SIGMET with all the radial coordinates used to define the boundaries will break my brain. Seeing it on a map is brazillions of times faster to comprehend.

And NOTAMs. Those @#$%^&* NOTAMs.

 

[jordane93]

METARs and TAFs are relatively easy. But an AIRMET or SIGMET with all the radial coordinates used to define the boundaries will break my brain. Seeing it on a map is brazillions of times faster to comprehend.

And NOTAMs. Those @#$%^&* NOTAMs.

Graphical AIRMETs are saviors. It's like I'm back in kindergarten.

 

[EdFred]

just like the 2nd post who knew the SIGMET was about volcanoes.

Did you even look at the sigmet, or did you just want something to ***** about?

Maybe you missed the plain language that said ERUPTION? No abbreviation, no short hand. How could that be any more dumbed down?

 

[N801BH]

In the 1950s-70s, these weather codes were sent out over a very low bandwidth(70-300 BAUD rate) comms channel. Every character was costly, so to reduce costs, and transmission time, they were heavily abbreviated.

The current system is still done that way because it's run by the feds, and they are both clueless, and grossly incompetent.

Exactly......