ianboag Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Had a quick look at the site today - can someone help me with the CRAVN bit of <YLIS/CRAVN/YSBK> - somewhere in NSW I suppose IB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKay Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 CRAVN S 32 07.6 E 151 46.0 is a designated IFR Waypoint (see ERSA 18-Nov-2010 IFR-GEN-3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 So I assume the appropriate thing is to leave it untranslated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushpilot Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 Outage? Hey Ian - We are having problems with loading Area21 today... Maybe all this rain has got into the system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracktop Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 Thanks for that JK. Knowing nothing about IFR (apart from the roads one) do they just give certain geographical positions (waypoints) in the air names as opposed to lat/long position. Which means sometimes it may mean it has some bearing to a place on the ground & as is the case with some other weird ones I've seen discussed on another thread, a name that has no bearing to anything? Just curious. Ian, I guess everyone that needs to know will know what it means. Although VFR pilots don't neccessarily know about IFR waypoints & it certainly isn't marked on the VNC-3. I guess because its a VFR chart. Seems odd to quote IFR waypoints on WX forecasts when VFR pilots use the same ones. Cheers Dexter Hi Dexter Have a look at your PCA_ozf.map file ( PCA chart) They seem to always use the places on this map in the weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushpilot Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Follow up Hi Ian,Thanks for this ... Rod did make mention of the discussion last year and was aware of the road blocks. However, after talking with him today he seems to think there is an alternative or a new approach to get this over the line. It may be best you have a chat with him directly and talk though his thinking and test it with you own understanding and help him shape it for the RAA Board meeting? Cheers Jack Does anyone know if this has been discussed at Board level as yet? Without doubt it is the one part of NavEx training that most students struggle with; and so unnecessary given that as soon as they have passed the tests many are going to be using any available PLM website or PLM software, as they dont intend to get licenced for higher levels of aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest linden dorrington Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 yes that site works thanks, linden new boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest linden dorrington Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 yes that site works thanks, linden new boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest linden dorrington Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 bruce. http://www.pemet,com.au/ it works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vev Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Does anyone know if this has been discussed at Board level as yet? Without doubt it is the one part of NavEx training that most students struggle with; and so unnecessary given that as soon as they have passed the tests many are going to be using any available PLM website or PLM software, as they dont intend to get licenced for higher levels of aviation. I spoke with Rod Birrell (RAA Board Member - Victoria) today and he says Plain Language Avmet has now been raised at the board level and adopted as a policy to implement. However as usual, it is about priorities and needs to be elevated to get some resource allocated towards getting it through the hoops. Birrell said whilst it is in the Ops Managers basket of things to do, he suggested if this is something the members want a few letters of support would be useful to get things moving along a little faster. So guys, if you want to take a few minutes to send Rod Birrell an email ( [email protected] ) and let him know in the interest of safety you support the adoption of a plain language weather report, I'm sure this will lift the profile and speed of implementation. Cheers Vev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Vev have you seen Post #7 about the site update coming in a couple of weeks: http://www.recreationalflying.com/showthread.php/128135-Upcoming-site-changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vev Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Hi Ian, Yes this is excellent stuff in terms of RF and good to see you have made this commitment. However, I think we need a fundamental philosophical change in the way weather is reported and taught to meet CAR 120 requirements. The code system is outdated, cumbersome and exposes infrequent users to risk thought misinterpretation of the data. As I have said before, this is one of those left over processes that belongs to the flat earth society and not 21st century airmanship.... we have better communication systems available why not use it officially! Cheers Vev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 I actually think the gibberish is a good idea. It is a very restrictive language and means very standard things. That means it is easy to (accurately) translate into English via a computer. I have to say BOM are a bit naughty with ARFORs though - they tend to be a higgledy mix of English and gibberish. That's because there are no ICAO standards for ARFORs. BOM could happily do them in plain English and not break any rules ... I think the ideal situation is to preserve the gibberish, but provide an optional (yeah right) PLM translation. That should make everyone happy. Now where I have I seen someone doing that .... ? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Here's an example of some non standard stuff from BOM (today) BRISBANE (YBBN) METAR YBBN 170700Z 36009KT 9999 FEW030 BKN260 SCT030CB 27/24 Q1003 RMK RF00.0/000.0 FM0700 02012KT 9999 LIGHT SHOWERS OF RAIN SCT025 TEMPO 0700/1000 VRB20G35KT 1000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN BKN010 SCT050CB Report issued 17th 5:00 pm QLDT Wind: gentle N (360°) 9 kt Visibility: 10 km or more Cloud: few at 3000 ft - broken at 26000 feet - scattered at 3000 ft with cumulonimbus Temperature: 27°C Dewpoint: 24°C QNH: 1003 hPa Rainfall : no rain in last 10 minutes , none since 9 am. Remarks : FM0700 02012 kt visibility over 10 km, light rain showers SCT025 temporarily (30-60 mins at a time) between between midnight and midnight VRB20G35 kt 1000 ft thunderstorms with rain BKN010 SCT050CB This is a METAR, but the forecaster has packed a TAF into the "Remarks" bit. My translator doesn't really expect the "remarks" section of a METAR to be a TAF written in gibberish. IB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossie Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Sorry Mr Boag, but that ain't a METAR it's a TTF, something you've neglected to uncode in your translations.......very naughty indeed. The message is in fact a forecast, the information in RMK's are the expected changes for the 3hr period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Fair enough. One is always ready to learn. It says "METAR" but it's a TTF. Got it. We try :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossie Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Sorry CFI, that message is a TTF. The TTF component is missing or has been stripped in the translation. Compare MR Boag's site with the source, you'll find that to be the case with all airports where TTF's are issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 Drat - my mistake - it was so long ago that I wrote this thing .... Now that my memory has been prodded I do remember something about "Trend Metars". We tend not to see them in NZ, so I had forgotten about it. Thanks for putting me straight Mr Ossie. Cheers Mr Boag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossie Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 Drat - my mistake - it was so long ago that I wrote this thing .... Now that my memory has been prodded I do remember something about "Trend Metars". We tend not to see them in NZ, so I had forgotten about it. Thanks for putting me straight Mr Ossie. Cheers Mr Boag G'day Ian..... I guess it's clear from all the discussion here that many are using sites like yours now for wx interpretation...I'm all for it if it helps guys out... Let me explain a scenario that I'd seen recently. Prior to any nav training we do quite a comprehensive nav brief ie: flight planning, preparation etc...as one would expect. On this occasion the young guy I was with had prepared a flight to Adelaide. When I checked out his briefing material I noticed his wx brief was from your site. I asked why, his reply was "the translation from gobbledygook to plain old english is a big help to me". We sat down in the briefing room again and went through his briefing material noting some of the differences from what he had to source data (NAIPS), and explaining how important it is to ensure the accuracy if using information from third party providers. The TTF's was one difference, and obviously can be issue if not noticed. Another I noticed is you use the word "Becoming" in the translation when a 'FM' is in a forecast/statement. BECMG is also an acronym used by the BOM. May be you could change the words from "Becoming" to "Changing to" in your translation. Quite possibly this may be pedantic to some, but FM and BECMG mean two different things here. I'm not being critical of your site, in fact I reckon its a great thing for guys that fly infrequently. Keep up the good work. Young, low time guys tend to listen to other young, slightly higher time guys, thats what happened in this case. Cheers Os Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 I think Os is right - it's a trend METAR and I had stripped off the TTF. Guilty as charged. My bad. Apologies all round. This is the sort of thing that can happen when a non-meteorologist makes a met site and the "authorities" (BOM in Aus, Metservice in NZ) offer zero help, have zero interest in doing it themselves and pretend it's all not there. Backed up of course by CASA/CAA. The latest "Vector" (NZ CAA magazine) had an article about weather - how vital it is to get an official briefing, how useful the TV/press can be, what a good idea it is to look up webcams, how you should think about phoning people on your planned route to ask them about the sky etc etc. Everything but PLM. Go figure. As far as TTFs are concerned, the basic problem with my translator is that when it gets to the <RMK> bit it is pretty much expecting plain (or abbreviated) English (aside from the rain/QNH stuff). So I was not sure what to do with gibberish and just left it "as written". At some stage I will get around to letting the gibberish translator loose on trend METARs and we'll all be happy :-) I assume one of the reasons this has never cropped up is that the kind of rec pilots who use the site don't fly into the big international airports very often. Cheers IB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted December 18, 2010 Share Posted December 18, 2010 Ian, I can understand why BOM etc won't help as you are not as you have said a "meteorologist", not an IT person or working for a Met entity and don't have the proper rigour that goes into something that can either save a life or kill someone. If you go away for a couple of days and your site goes down for some small reason and a recreational pilot has been using it for some time now flies some where and can't access your site. He can't remember how to interpret the proper and official weather info...takes a risk as it all looks good and flies off somewhere only to be caught out by the weather...one of the biggest killers of pilots. Don't get me wrong Plain English weather would be a good thing but BOM will never change...not in my life time no matter how much pressure is applied...like we see with CASA even an idea from conception to reality takes many many many years and something that has International impacts and/or extra costs would be a massive and very prolonged fight. personally I very strongly believe that for our continued safety we should be learning and know the proper and official weather releases from BOM...they have the resources, the knowledge, the extensive rigour, accuracy and their info will have a greater degree of accuracy and backing...besides if they do get something wrong we can sue them for millions...better then you losing your house over one small error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 Ian. I take it you are suggesting that the best thing I could do for aviation safety is to take my site down and leave folk back grumbling about gobbledygook. Wot? Noone is compelled to use it .... BOM could try the Canadian approach - http://www.flightplanning.navcanada.ca/ - choice of plain English or jibberish In NZ CAA beat MetService round the head a bit and now our MetFlight (Kiwi NAIPS) has an (optional) PLM link with the following disclaimer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER You are leaving the MetService MetFlight Homepage and will be redirected to an external translation service. The user assumes the entire risk related to its use of this translation service. MetService is providing the link only and disclaims any and all warranties, whether express or implied, including (without limitation) any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event will MetService be liable to you or to any third party for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages or lost profit resulting from any use or misuse of this data. MetService is not responsible for the contents of any "off-site" web pages referenced from its servers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Kimber Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Plain Language weather Ian, A word of support for the Plain Language weather service. One of the best things to happen since sliced bread for private pilots who fly once a week or so. Cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The Weather page on Recreational Flying now has it: http://www.recreationalflying.com/pages/weather.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I went back and had a look at the site to get rid of the error where "as" gets translated to "altostratus" when it shouldn't. I may have missed some possibilities so will act promptly (truly!) if anyone points these or other translation errors out to me ..... the TTF METAR one is a bit more than I feel like taking on right now though. Cheers IB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now