Captain Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Geeeeeez. When checking out vital Sigmets, can they be more cryptic, confusing and prone to misinterpretation by recreational users? I guess you get used to the form and codes if you are a pro .......... but in this day and age I can't believe that Sigmets don't have to be in plain language. Now that is off my chest, I note the terrific discussion on this Forum back in 06 at http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/showthread.php?t=636&highlight=SIGMET that gave the SIGMET decoder program location. However I ask .......... why doesn't the BOM offer that under the title "Sigmets for Idiots" (and the average pilot). Regards Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 If everyone could decode sigmets and also other weather related info there would be no need for lots of training of pilots. How that lower the standards of piloting! Also with easy to understand info it would be too easy, and the accident rate would go down, even to the extent that we wouldn't need CASA. Seriously I believe it is a throwback to the days of Telex machines and aviation, while being an up to date industry is too hide bound with tradition to come into the 21st century. If you don't believe me have a look at headsets, microphones and their connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I am not sure what the issue is here. At risk of starting an us and them type argument, which is not my intention, during GA training this stuff is all covered in detail (at least it was during mine). I would have thought that it would be covered in the cross country portion of RA training too. Having said this, making it easier can't do any harm can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flyer40 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I've heard the "compliant with the ICAO standards" from several sources. And with the pilot population split for and against, there doesn't appear to be a mandate for change. The opponents of plain-English met reports are usually older or professional pilots, including some who used Morse Code in their early flying days and are of the opinion that 'real pilots use coded weather'. And they are often the ones holding high office and positions of influence. I also suspect that the mets have a similar sentimental view toward their codes. But I can't see why BoM can't provide a plain-English version for pilots who prefer it. Met reports are "safety critical" information. So there's also an obvious safety case for taking the mystery out of them. Perhaps we should start an on-line petition to lobby BoM and invite pilots from around the country to sign it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share Posted February 6, 2008 That is a good suggestion in the final para by Flyer40. Ian or Ross .......... can you add a poll to the top of this Thread asking for a vote something along the lines of "I prefer the BOM's coded Met Information" or "I would prefer to use plain language Met Info if the BOM provided it". Regards Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RogerRammedJet Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Here's a really novel suggestion! Anyone who aspires to being a pilot - could just learn the Codes! Problem solved. Rog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted February 6, 2008 Author Share Posted February 6, 2008 Here's a really novel suggestion!Anyone who aspires to being a pilot - could just learn the Codes! Problem solved. Rog Rog I'm surprised that you didn't say " Anyone who aspires to being a "REAL" pilot - could just learn the Codes!" I still maintain that in today's real world plain language for Met reports or predictions would provide less chance or misinterpretation. The coded message could then also be given for those that feel it best suits them, just like they can still choose to use a sextant instead of a GPS. Regards Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flyer40 Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Love the sextant thing Reminds me a of a now retired captain who turned to his 9000 hour FO after doing an ILS into Heathrow and said "that wasn't as easy as I made it look son". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Lol.. I agree, they are confusing, but guys comon... Its things like that that seperate us from mere mortals..;) I agree with the earlier post saying its probably a left over from the earlydays, like QNH...we all know what QNH is, but do you know what it stands for?? i only recently found out , and yep, you guessed , its a relic from the morse code days.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcamp Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 How much paper could you need for the plain language. I just got the area forecasts for a flight I do frequently (Melbourne to Caloundra), came to 29 pages and chopping out irrelevant airfields cut it back to 20 pages - a bit more than normal which would be in the 15 page range. Thats bad enough but an extra 30 pages of waffle would be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 How much paper could you need for the plain language.... Perhaps we could get them to issue a unique code for each set of unique weather coditions. in this way you could just have Melb = 16538, Syd=24356 etc That way we'd get it all on one page. REAL pilots could claim to know what 24356 was without needing to look it up, RAA guys... we'd need "the book of weather" Compared to someone blundering into some weather where they shouldnt be, a few pages extra isnt literally"going to kill you" . Of course for those that want to impress with the magic decoder ring, have them available online in both formats. I vote for both, but would probably choose to use the plain text version. I find it ineteresting that we use written checklists because we can forget, including the people who do it daily as a career, yet we choose to use unfriendly and from a technology perspective ancient history based on morse code needs to keep everything to as few letters as possible. Thank god the man with the red light that used to walk in front of cars couldnt find some way to lead the aeroplane:) Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanR Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 My two cents worth - the one good thing about the formal way they do the reports now is that each item is very well defined so if you can read them they are consistent no matter who issues them. I must admit that when I have not flown for while and look through the reports I sometimes have to look things up just to be sure. With the formality of the current wording maybe there is a case for a computer based translator ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 With the formality of the current wording maybe there is a case for a computer based translator ? Try this one. I used to use it as a learning tool (before I became a real pilot). Ross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I guess you get used to the form and codes if you are a pro .......... but in this day and age I can't believe that Sigmets don't have to be in plain language. Quote. Having thought about the codes used in sigmets, being confusing, maybe we sjould also ask for full names for airstrips, rather than for instance YSWG, which I have to look up to find where it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Having thought about the codes used in sigmets, being confusing, maybe we sjould also ask for full names for airstrips, rather than for instance YSWG, which I have to look up to find where it is. Just ask Captain, I am sure he knows where it is. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 I know it well as it's a tad west of YTUM, a little south of YTEM, a long way south of YTDR, north of YTDN and NW of YTHB ....... and in deference to Ian's last post, I find the abbreviations a bit more of a problem when passing through an unfamiliar area. However am now partway through memorizing them all so that I can be a "real" pirate. We are also north of FIR TC HONDO 994HPA OBS AT 1800Z TC CENTRE S2418 E08512 CB TOP FL350 WI 120NM OF CENTRE MOV SSW 8KT WKN FCST 120600Z TC CENTRE S2454 E08424 OTLK 121800Z S2500 E08300 STS:REV SIGMET PH02 111400/112000 YBBB SIGMET TL06 VALID 112100/120300 And a little south of YBTL- YBBB BRISBANE FIR MONSOON LOW NEAR S2200 E14800 MOV SE 15KT LOW LEVEL SEV TURB FCST WI 60NM OF LOW, AND SEV MTW BLW A100 NEAR COASTAL RANGES BETWEEN YBPN AND YGLA NC STS: REV SIGMET TL05 VALID 111600/112100, ..................... so watch out. Regards Geoffxxwwghtiip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AusDarren Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 pic beats wors hands down! Dont you reckon the pic of where it is and an arrow and speed is better? [ATTACH]5032.vB[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigPete Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I would love to see plain text weather reports/forecasts. I (and others I know) can decipher the report, but don't necessarily comprehend what it has told me (us) - I tend to write it out longhand and then absorb what it is saying. (If you get my drift....) Years ago as a radio operator tn the army, we trained in Morse code - none of us recalled what we had received until we read the message that was complete. (because we received a letter at a time, not a word or sentance) regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab0767 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 The absurd thing to me is that somebody actually has to sit down and encode them in the first place and now that Real pilots have to be able to speak English, maybe they could also learn to read it. If a plain english report saved 1 life or prevented 1 accident it would be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest landmann Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 sigmet made easy Cut a small hole in a large piece of light blue paper. Hold the paper up in front of your face and look up. When the hole is the same color as the paper...safe to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aircraft1 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 In the USofA you can get your met in fancy aviation talk/codes or in plain Engalish. Te plain Engalish version is used about 3/4 of the time by people downloading fom th net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest airsick Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 In the USofA you can get your met in fancy aviation talk/codes or in plain Engalish. Te plain Engalish version is used about 3/4 of the time by people downloading fom th net. Can we get your post in 'plain Engalish' please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Clarify? Captain, you said you wanted to be a real PIRATE. Is that a Freudian slip? C'mon, show us your wooden leg! That MET. stuff is a uniform standard used world- wide. One Plain language system that I was directed to the last time that this subject came up, while a commendable effort, did not hit the spot (in my view). I have used the standard form of code for ever, and maybe I'm dumb, but I reckon that unless you are extremely carefull reading it you could miss some critical detail. There used to be 2-digit numbers to correspond to each different weather phenomenon which acted as a recognisable double-check and you got maps with fronts and little wind arrows all over the place. You got a full personal and a printed briefing as well if you gave the required notice. Yes, there was a morse code key near the window. Doesn't your aeroplane have one of those? Nev... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aircraft1 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Which one would you prefer ??? This is the current forecast for LAX in aviation format and also in what the FAA call plain text. In the USA you can download either for your briefing, i know what i would prefer ! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Normal Forecast KLAX 110527Z 110606 VRB04KT P6SM SKC FM1800 22008KT P6SM SKC FM2000 25010KT P6SM SKC FM0000 28008KT P6SM SKC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Plain English Forecast for: KLAX (LOS ANGELES, CA, US) KLAX 110527Z 110606 VRB04KT P6SM SKC Forecast period: 0600 to 1800 UTC 11 April 2008 Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change Winds: variable direction winds at 5 MPH (4 knots; 2.1 m/s) Visibility: 6 or more miles (10+ km) Clouds: clear skies Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period FM1800 22008KT P6SM SKC Forecast period: 1800 to 2000 UTC 11 April 2008 Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change Winds: from the SW (220 degrees) at 9 MPH (8 knots; 4.2 m/s) Visibility: 6 or more miles (10+ km) Clouds: clear skies Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period FM2000 25010KT P6SM SKC Forecast period: 2000 UTC 11 April 2008 to 0000 UTC 12 April 2008 Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change Winds: from the WSW (250 degrees) at 12 MPH (10 knots; 5.2 m/s) Visibility: 6 or more miles (10+ km) Clouds: clear skies Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period FM0000 28008KT P6SM SKC Forecast period: 0000 to 0600 UTC 12 April 2008 Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change Winds: from the W (280 degrees) at 9 MPH (8 knots; 4.2 m/s) Visibility: 6 or more miles (10+ km) Clouds: clear skies Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigPete Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 So where to now:question: With 90% of the poll wanting plain english weather reports, how do we lodge our bid for change? :confused: If the RAA is fast approaching 10000 members, I recon we stand a fair chance of bringing about a much needed change of weather reports. :thumb_up: Let's get off our bums and actually do something. :big_grin::big_grin: Who's in? regards 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