Weather Services: Why so many abbreviations?

I can translate but there is no reason not to make things less confusing.
I feel dumb sometimes being a grown man mumbling "BR.. um baby rain, ok, there's mist"

Its odd and ineffecient but I make sure I know how to intreprate it in case um well because they said so.
 
Just like the FCC relaxing their morse code rules (dammit, it was hard for me, so it should be hard for you!)... The FAA will eventually get it. Maybe someone will sue them for perpetuating a system that could easily introduce errors.

'One reason I refused to continue using Avilution/FlightPro... their developer insisted that offering decoded weather wasn't a priority. O wd u prfr it lk ths?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I can translate but there is no reason not to make things less confusing.
I feel dumb sometimes being a grown man mumbling "BR.. um baby rain, ok, there's mist"

Its odd and ineffecient but I make sure I know how to intreprate it in case um well because they said so.
Click to expand...
I still picture Martha King when i see BR and think Baby Rain!
 
docmirror said:
Um - why are you asking me why?
Click to expand...
sorry - I blame tapatalk. :-o



EdFred said:
Did you even look at the sigmet, or did you just want something to ***** about?
Click to expand...
the example used might not have matched the post as well as another example might have, but the point he made is no less valid.

If you were responsible for developing the verbiage and rules for weather and other aviation related reports, would you use multiple languages and a confusing mishmash of numeric rules? I'm thinking you probably wouldn't. So why should we continue to perpetuate this crap on new and future pilots?
 
Unbeliever said:
I can scan METARs and TAFs a lot faster in abbreviated form than plain language. The information density is much better than plain language.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

bobmrg said:
Just about everything you guys are moaning about is available in graphic form. Go to www.aviationweather.gov/adds
Click to expand...

But (IIRC) that doesn't contitute a legal briefing.

Basically, this discussion will have those who've learned the system on one side and those who haven't (and don't want to) on the other. Not saying either is 100% right but the former group seem less lazy to me.

And if characters are so cheap and easy then WTF?

YMMV, LOL, IIRC, YGBFSM.

BTW IOW KMA. :goofy:
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amen, I had a student recently who was in love with the decoded stuf . What an unorganized load of gobbledygook.
 
ahkahn said:
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!
Click to expand...

:yes:

Now, if we can get the same morons to use local time and F the airways would have with better informed and educated pilots.
 
timwinters said:
But (IIRC) that doesn't contitute a legal briefing.
Click to expand...

Of course it does constitute a legal brief. It just isn't a briefing they can easily find that you pulled in the event of an accident unless it's sitting in your bag and there was no post-accident fire lol
 
mkosmo said:
Of course it does constitute a legal brief. It just isn't a briefing they can easily find that you pulled in the event of an accident unless it's sitting in your bag and there was no post-accident fire lol
Click to expand...

Ummmmm....

It is not intended as a substitute for a weather briefing obtained from a Flight Service Station (1-800-WXBRIEF). Currently, the information contained here does not meet the FAA requirements for a pre-flight weather brief. Therefore, it's important that pilots still call and obtain a briefing from an FAA Flight Service Specialist
Click to expand...
 
VWGhiaBob said:
...Again, the abbreviations from AIRMET's to TAF's to SIGMET's are soooo un unnecessary in 2015...
Click to expand...

I'd liken it to an affliction or a mild compulsive disorder. When you start abbreviating words or creating acronyms for groups of words what do you do when you get to a word that only has four letters or a term that only has two short words? Well shoot, everything else is abbreviated so we can't have a non-abbreviated word in there, it just messes up the whole symbiosis.

There also is pressure from those who have come to learn and understand the cryptic terms like a second language. They don't want to give it up.
 
timwinters said:
Exactly!



But (IIRC) that doesn't contitute a legal briefing.

Basically, this discussion will have those who've learned the system on one side and those who haven't (and don't want to) on the other. Not saying either is 100% right but the former group seem less lazy to me.

And if characters are so cheap and easy then WTF?

YMMV, LOL, IIRC, YGBFSM.

BTW IOW KMA. :goofy:
Click to expand...

You also have people who know the 'system' and still find it unnecessarily complex and difficult to sift through to achieve what you're really after... weather insight. No one's saying that this stuff cannot possibly be deciphered, they're saying it is painfully slow and tedious and doesn't need to be. And it's 100% a problem of old outdated presentation, not a problem of substance nor availability of sufficiently advanced and cheap technology.

Yes we've all learned how to read these things at one point or other but that isn't the point. The point is that it could easily be much better, as numerous apps have proven. But since when is improvement a motive for government? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Used the decoded briefing on https://www.1800wxbrief.com/Website/login and there you go. Its the same thing they give you when you call, except you dont have to deal with anyone and you can do your own research. They call it "nextgen" vs coded and decoded. I believe it defaults to nextgen ("decoded").
 
timwinters said:
Exactly!

And if characters are so cheap and easy then WTF?

YMMV, LOL, IIRC, YGBFSM.

BTW IOW KMA. :goofy:
Click to expand...

this is the problem! i need a key to figure these out too:

YMMV = ?? (you're making me vomit?)
WTF = everybody knows that one (i think)
IIRC = ??
BTW = by the way (probably)
IOW = ??
KMA = i can imagine what that probably means
LOL, so tired of this one
YGBFSM = i can imagine what that probably means
 
scottd said:
I can do all of this in just a few seconds with this kind of display. I can't do that as easy when looking at a plain english translation for several airports. And it's nearly impossible to do this on a small handheld device like a smartphone.
Click to expand...

Let's consider that a graphical feature request for FF. :D

Graphical METAR history + TAF with a slider on the map. Next killer feature of FF!

I keep thinking too that ASOS/METAR-based ceilings/wx along a corridor (width of user's choosing) could be depicted in the map's profile view too. How badarse would that be!

"Am I going to meet VFR minima all the way to my destination? Yep, says here on FF I won't have any problems. Now lemme check trends."

We can check the same thing in other ways now, but with the profile view you're checking to see if your chosen cruise altitude would be "good" all the way to destination or if things get better/worse. Throw airmet altitudes in there too and it's super rich.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not know if this format will be on "your" written test, but it was on mine. Did not like it one bit, but I got all the weather questions right. However if you ask me now , I have probably forgotten 1/2 of the stuff.

Cheers
 
petrolero said:
Let's consider that a graphical feature request for FF. :D

Graphical METAR history + TAF with a slider on the map. Next killer feature of FF!

I keep thinking too that ASOS/METAR-based ceilings/wx along a corridor (width of user's choosing) could be depicted in the map's profile view too. How badarse would that be!

"Am I going to meet VFR minima all the way to my destination? Yep, says here on FF I won't have any problems. Now lemme check trends."

We can check the same thing in other ways now, but with the profile view you're checking to see if your chosen cruise altitude would be "good" all the way to destination or if things get better/worse. Throw airmet altitudes in there too and it's super rich.
Click to expand...

Your idea for METAR cloud bases in terrain profile view was done years ago in Seattle Avionics Voyager.

I found it useful for swagging a VFR cruise altitude without having to hassle with the changing airport elevations along the route. (Yes, handy despite the risk scottd pointed out ).

In fact, I was looking for an app or site that provides such today ... (No luck, but I haven't looked too hard)
 
petrolero said:
Let's consider that a graphical feature request for FF. :D

Graphical METAR history + TAF with a slider on the map. Next killer feature of FF!
Click to expand...

A thousand times yes. Being able to slide back and forth in the recent METAR past and near TAF/MOS future would be great. One can sort of do this with the regional TAF plot and TAF board, but having it integrated into the FF GUI would be even better.
 
neilki said:
@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.
Click to expand...

ralarcon said:
I do not know if this format will be on "your" written test, but it was on mine. Did not like it one bit, but I got all the weather questions right. However if you ask me now , I have probably forgotten 1/2 of the stuff.

Cheers
Click to expand...

That's the point, he was doing a flight review with a CFI, not prepping for a check ride or a written. If he's not pursuing any more ratings and thus doesn't have to study for the test, why keep up with an antique weather system he's never going to use?
 
petrolero said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

WingX examples:
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    218.5 KB · Views: 18
For some reason it only put one of the two examples in the original post.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    242.3 KB · Views: 12
Doing text weather on a flight review sounds backwards to me. You're supposed to go over the newest/latest/greatest things in aviation that you may have not heard of in the past couple of years. Text weather?? Welcome to 1982!
 
MickYoumans said:
For some reason it only put one of the two examples in the original post.
Click to expand...

Mick, I like the way wingx formatted the decoded TAFs, the decoded metars are a little clunky/bloaty though.
 
EdFred said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is true for you and others, but one of the keys to keeping GA alive long term is to simplify flying.

Right now, flying is hard AND expensive. The combination of these two keeps many people away.

Even if it stays expensive, which it probably will, if we made it easier, more people would fly.
 
RalphInCA said:
Perhaps this is true for you and others, but one of the keys to keeping GA alive long term is to simplify flying.

Right now, flying is hard AND expensive. The combination of these two keeps many people away.

Even if it stays expensive, which it probably will, if we made it easier, more people would fly.
Click to expand...

Good points!

Back to my computer analogy, why don't we all switch back to DOS? I could find a folder a whole lot faster by typing "DIR", and "CD.."
 
RalphInCA said:
...Even if it stays expensive, which it probably will, if we made it easier, more people would fly.
Click to expand...

Not sure I can buy that. I don't really think there are people out there itching to get a pilot's license but are holding back or throwing in the towel just because METARS are too hard to read.

I'm with those who are saying look, the coded lines aren't that difficult to get. It's not like you have to learn a new language or anything.
 
I personally prefer coded METARs and TAFs; as others have said it is easier to read at a glance and if I decide I want a printed copy I can carry a lot more on much less paper. That said, tablets are dramatically reducing the amount of printed material people carry.

I would be in favor of some of the more obscure remarks being made as plain text, as well as NOTAMs.
 
If it has a green dot, go.

Blue dot, maybe. (this is where we get into reading METARS)

Red or magenta, stay home.
 
Something else to consider is that aviation exists outside the US and native English speaking world. While a plain language English weather report is easier for a non-career American pilot it would not be easier for the pilot around the world who's primary language is not English.
 
Silvaire said:
Not sure I can buy that. I don't really think there are people out there itching to get a pilot's license but are holding back or throwing in the towel just because METARS are too hard to read.

.
Click to expand...

It's not JUST the METARS. It's lots of little things - including METARS - that makes aviation harder than it need be. The more we can simplify things the better it will be long term for the hobby/passion/profession.

I've known lots of people over the years who could afford to fly, but don't pursue it because it's "not worth the effort".
 
RalphInCA said:
...I've known lots of people over the years who could afford to fly, but don't pursue it because it's "not worth the effort".
Click to expand...

I would say that "not worth the effort" is the equivalent of "not really interested" Pretty much everyone I've known in aviation, including myself, has been completely nuts about it. I mean face it, there's nothing practical about this hobby of ours. You couldn't win an argument for it using any sense of logic.
 
Silvaire said:
I would say that "not worth the effort" is the equivalent of "not really interested" Pretty much everyone I've known in aviation, including myself, has been completely nuts about it. I mean face it, there's nothing practical about this hobby of ours. You couldn't win an argument for it using any sense of logic.
Click to expand...


I can be 480n.m. from my door to Amarillo in three hours as opposed to eleven driving and dodging all the dangers that driving involves.

If that isn't logical, I don't know what is ... :dunno:
 
Another expensive hobby/passion/profession is boating.

One of the reasons people get into boating is because it doesn't take much learning to drive a boat. Not even a license in most cases.

Boating does not seem to be dying like GA.
 
RalphInCA said:
It's not JUST the METARS. It's lots of little things - including METARS - that makes aviation harder than it need be. The more we can simplify things the better it will be long term for the hobby/passion/profession.

I've known lots of people over the years who could afford to fly, but don't pursue it because it's "not worth the effort".
Click to expand...

A barrier to laziness is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top