SIGMETS - CAN THEY BE MORE CRYPTIC?

[Guest aircraft1]

Well, send them the info above on the briefing for LAX and say if its good enough for 40,000 airports in the USofA then its good enough for Australia!

 

Surely it cant be too hard and if it saves just one life each year because people actually understand the info then its worth it !

 

 

[Captain]

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

 

 

Peter

 

 

 

Good suggestion.

 

 

 

I reckon that this is an issue which the RAA might see some merit to take forward if it fits with some of the other items they are pursuing, and while the sample might only be small, 90% looks like a fairly strong vote .... and has stayed at about that % almost all of the way through the poll.

 

 

 

Perhaps you and I could send a PM to Chris and to Mick suggesting that they review the Poll and take up the cudgel for us.

 

 

 

What do you reckon?

 

 

 

One of the key points on this issue is that we are not asking that the coded form be scrapped, just that a plain english version be offered as an option (as has been mentioned is apparently the case in the USA).

 

 

 

As mentioned near the beginning, I suspect that a plain language version would also assist the BOM's liability profile as there must surely be less chance of a non full-time/non-professional pilot misinterpreting the message.

 

 

 

The only disadvantage might be that such a request might allow the forces of darkness to say that the RAA members are therefore not "real" dinky dye fair-dinkum pilots.

 

 

 

Nev ....... I'd show you my wooden leg but it has been whittled into a shape that Ian would not allow to appear in a photo. Ah .... Jim lad.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

 

EDIT .... aircraft1's last post is spot-on.

 

 

 

[Yenn]

Over the years the coded form has changed, and i believe the code was really introduced in the days of Telex when every word cost money.

 

I attended an Airservices Meeting at the local aerodrome last Thursday. There were 2 Airservices people and myself and 1 other GA pilot attended, so you can see apathy rules here.

 

We brought up the idea of plain English weather info and were assured that they had heard of the idea before and would look into it.

 

Other topics discussed were the cost of buying all the relevant info. We suggested that in the interests of safety it would be a good idea to make this info available on the net. That would ensure that pilots had the info, rather than rely on out of date material because of cost. This was noted.

 

We also brought up the fears about high costs of ADSB, but here I felt that the two Airservices people were not fully conversant with the timetable which I have seen. The GA pilot was concerned that ADSB In would cost a great deal of money and without it he was relying on others to see and avoid him. My concern was that in the future it was likely in my opinion that a large number of the CTAF airfields would be made into CTAF® and we would need ADSB to enter them. I was assured this would not happen, but remain sceptical.

 

Generally I think that Glen and Kathleen, the 2 from Airservices were keen to get a good outcome for all and they listened to our theories with a view to working out the best and safest way for us all to fly.

 

 

[Captain]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, both BigPete and myself contacted the RAA's Mick Poole to make him aware of the result of this poll and to see if the RAA would be interested to progress this issue.

 

 

 

Mick has now advised the following and has given me approval to post it here and the following is a précis of his advice.

 

 

 

 

Mick's initial response was delayed for a little while because he was scheduled to attend a BOM Consultative meeting earlier last week and wanted to put this SIGMET language issue to them in person.

 

Mick supports the option to have plain text wx briefings and after a discussion with BOM he will be talking to them further in the next few weeks about getting this up and running on the BOM site. They advised Mick that it will not be difficult to do and they will just add a link to the current Aviation WX sites to a plain text option.

 

Mick has advised that he will try and keep us informed of the progress.

 

Mick was also able to have a look at some of the more Graphical wx information that is going to implemented into the system over the next few months he reports that it is very good. It gives a better pictorial idea of the weather and what is doing.

 

NOW ..... I reckon that this is a great outcome for the way this Forum works, for those that voted in the poll, and for the manner in which the RAA Executive will respond to worthwhile suggestions.

 

 

 

Who says the recreational aviation movement isn't in reasonably good nick in OZ?

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest Decca]

Must admit I was one of the minority, mainly because I had previous industry experience having basically taught myself, but just want to say; it looks like you've had a win here fellas, with backing from RAAus.

 

Well done Geoff (and BIG Pete).

 

Regards, Decca.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Good outcome Geoff.

 

It must be nice to champion a cause and see a result. Well done.

 

It will probably save lives somewhere along the line too.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I haven't ever had any issues with the met reports but this is no doubt going to make them easier. Nice win Captain.

 

 

[Guest aircraft1]

So....... where are we up to with this one ??

 

 

[Captain]

So....... where are we up to with this one ??

G'day Tarz.

 

 

 

The latest is as advised in post #29 and it is between Mick Poole and the BOM ... mostly the latter as I understand it. Hopefully they will do what was advised and the issue will be gone.

 

 

 

It has been a bit over a month since Mick sent his advice thru, and I'm not sure how long it takes a Gov't department with a moniker starting with "Bureau" to act. Maybe we should run a guessing comp while we wait.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

To decode the following Sigmet, you just need to follow the legend below.

 

SGMTS CNBEE APN N THASS

 

SG = (SIG)

 

MTS = (METS)

 

CN = (CAN)

 

BEE = (BE)

 

APN = (A PAIN)

 

N = (IN)

 

THASS = (THE ASS)

 

 

[BigPete]

So - what's the hold up, when's it going to happen?

 

regards

 

:big_grin::big_grin:

 

 

[Captain]

G'day Pete,

 

I have sent a followup note to Mick Poole today to see if he can take this up with the BOM again and give us an update on progress. Will pass an anything that I hear. If you have time it would be good if you can contact him again too, to reinforce the request, same like we both did originally. You always have more pull than me, anyway.

 

Best regards Geoff

 

PS ... I note in the new Airsafety Digest that there are new or changed abbreviations in SIGMETS. And just when I was getting fluent in Sigmet speak too.

 

Or as us SIGMETISTS so often say: Nt ASg N abr Sig J W FL GTGSig S @ 2 alpha YSWG wthr Sh-house, & dnt tch it or yu'll go blind.

 

PPS .. YEAH, WHOOPIE ... 90% in favour of the alternative plain-speak being available in SIGMETS .... YEAH

 

 

[Captain]

Pete et al

 

Had an email back from Mick Poole to say that he will make contact again with the BOM and see where they are up to with this.

 

Thanks Mick.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[ianboag]

Here in NZ we have similar grumps with weather info presented in gobbledygarbage.

 

There's an outfit in Dunedin (Flysafe) who wrote a translator (to English) as part of a nav/planning computer program. Have a look at Redirection if interested.

 

I haven't followed this thread so I don't know if I'm telling my granny how to suck eggs here ... but .... if you log on to the Canadian equivalent of AirServices and get a TAF/METAR you have the choice of ggbge, English or French. So it can't be hard. They have been doing it for years. Go figure.

 

There's a lot of bureacratic stuff about it here on this side of the Tasman. I finally got to talk to the man in charge of avmet in MetServices (our equivalent of BOM). I said that presumably the forecasters make it up in English before turning it into pig-Latin, so if we could just have the English ..... Not so! There people look at a map and the Greek just flows. Amazing. Still - one would imagine they would pick up English pretty quick. As was pointed out to me, they are all uni-qualified!

 

Cheers

 

IB

 

 

[ianboag]

Just one other thought we had been kicking round here - if translator software exists then it would be a bit of a hoot to put it on the Web "for training purposes only" and "never to be used as a met planning tool" and all that.

 

Then one could get the Met from normal Net sources , and cut/paste it into the "training" website as a check that your manual analysis is correct. Perhaps you might even find mistakes in the software. At least the software would probably know which times are local and which are UTC and which directions are true and which are magnetic ..... but I'm probably the only pilot on the planet who doesn't have all that good stuff at his fingertips. :-)

 

IB

 

 

[Student Pilot]

There have been complaints about this since Pontius was a pilot, there are people that say things will change. As usual CASA don't seem to care what anybody thinks, they do things their way. Good luck with any changes.

 

For those who read regs a bit what are the ACTUAL requirements for weather sourced, does it have to be bom aviation prepared weather?

 

For cross country I get the aviation stuff (I find it hard work decifering) but normally look at satellite and 4 day surface chart, if there's anything going on I will look at radars. I still carry the aviation stuff but find the other stuff informs better.

 

 

[ianboag]

Have a look at this ..... METAR Translator

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Ian, ran a TAF and METAR - still some unexplained info, not the fault of the translator.

 

I found one the other day with BILLY in it. Billy Goat?

 

 

[ossie]

Hi there, this thread has intrigued me somewhat.

 

BOM forecasts and WX reports I've come across have been quite legible. Would like to see a few of the 'offending' examples in case I've missed something.

 

Cheers

 

Os

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you fly frequently, you may be up to speed with all the jargon in which case it's not much of a problem.

 

 

[Captain]

Hi there, this thread has intrigued me somewhat.BOM forecasts and WX reports I've come across have been quite legible. Would like to see a few of the 'offending' examples in case I've missed something.

Cheers

 

Os

G'day Os. Have a look at post #16 & #24 of this thread.

 

As stated in my post #1, the issue is not necessarily that pilots can't work them out once familiar with the lingo, or that we can't work them out once you take a while. It is rather that they may be more subject to misinterpretation than a plain language alternative. Particularly if you are operating in an area in which you are unfamiliar.

 

Please also note that we are not asking for the existing language to be scrapped. Just that a plain english version be added as an alternative .... although from other posts it does appear that the existing codes arose from the needs of old technology and practice that pure & simply does not apply and is not needed any more.

 

Hope this helps. Regards Geoff

 

 

[ianboag]

Here's an example of what the Canadians get ....

 

Try this link to see what can be done

 

http://www.flightplanning.navcanada.ca

 

Note the options for "standard format" or "plain language". Obviously navcanada are smarter than BOM (Oz) or Airways Corp (NZ) ...... I know which one I would be reading if I lived there.

 

Pig Latin MET info is not all that hard but it's right up there with Morse code, open cockpits and hand-swung props.

 

IB

 

 

[BigPete]

Now that's, what I call a forecast :thumb_up::thumb_up::thumb_up:

 

regards

 

:big_grin::big_grin:

 

 

[Captain]

Try this link to see what can be doneAWWS - Forecasts and Observations

 

Note the options for "standard format" or "plain language". Obviously navcanada are smarter than BOM (Oz) or Airways Corp (NZ) ...... I know which one I would be reading if I lived there.

 

Pig Latin MET info is not all that hard but it's right up there with Morse code, open cockpits and hand-swung props.

 

IB

Great post Ian

 

And I note that Canada even give the real name of the town as well as the code. How sensible is that? .......... but the "real" pilots in OZ will probably object to going that far.

 

Regards & thanks for the link

 

Geoff

 

 

[ossie]

G'day Os. Have a look at post #16 & #24 of this thread.As stated in my post #1, the issue is not necessarily that pilots can't work them out once familiar with the lingo, or that we can't work them out once you take a while. It is rather that they may be more subject to misinterpretation than a plain language alternative. Particularly if you are operating in an area in which you are unfamiliar.

 

Please also note that we are not asking for the existing language to be scrapped. Just that a plain english version be added as an alternative .... although from other posts it does appear that the existing codes arose from the needs of old technology and practice that pure & simply does not apply and is not needed any more.

 

Hope this helps. Regards Geoff

Hi there Geoff, yes I have read all posts, and understand that there is no suggestion to do away with the current format. However, there seems to be some 'thread drift' in later posts to include TAF's and METAR's with what appears to be a common theme "I don't really understand these coded messages, so I'd like them in a plain english version". I guess I see it a little differently.

 

I frequently visited this forum for quite some time before I signed up, the reason I did sign up is because the majority of members show a keen passion for flying, and the level of expertise and knowledge here appealed to me. The theory components that one needs to pass (and to a relatively high standard I'm sure we'd all agree) to gain an RAA or GA license are quite similar. If only the same level of detail went into understanding WX messages as what went into understanding aerodynamics and acft performance !!

 

Not sure if I agree that a plain english version will limit confusion. The way I see it is the more one has to read and decipher the more likely one will slip up.

 

As pointed out earlier all "high end" flight planning systems parse WX messages to calculate fuel loads. My guess is that this type of functionality in your average 'run of the mill' flight plan calculator is really not all that far away, and being 'boys that likes to have the latest toys' that we are, no doubt most of us will want to tinker a bit. And, isn't it nice to have all your WX on one sheet of paper ?. Imagine doing a long navex with 4 or 5 selected enoute airports and alternates. You'd have paper everywhere if one used a format shown in that LAX example earlier.

 

And I note that Canada even give the real name of the town as well as the code. How sensible is that? .......... but the "real" pilots in OZ will probably object to going that far.

Now now, there's no need for cheap shots. The last time I looked NAIPS and the BOM shows the airport name along with it's ICAO code, they've being doing it for a while.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against plain english versions, but in this user pays society we now live in someone will have to bear the costs for system changes.......

 

Cheers

 

Os