Translate WX Forecast

[John T]

Here's a TAF for Elizabeth City, NC:

TAF KECG 292350Z 300024 18005KT 6SM -SHRA BR SCT015 BKN030
TEMPO 0103 3SM TSRA BR OVC015CB
FM0300 16005KT 5SM SHRA BR OVC025CB
FM0800 VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC040
FM1400 18007KT P6SM BKN040
FM2000 15006KT 5SM SHRA BR BKN025CB AMD NOT SKCED AFT 02Z

what does "AMD NOT SKCED AFT 02Z" mean?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Michelle P]

Amendment not scheduled after 02Z (closing time).
Michelle
Ref Section 4 Page 3 AC00-45E

John T wrote:

>Here's a TAF for Elizabeth City, NC:
>
>TAF KECG 292350Z 300024 18005KT 6SM -SHRA BR SCT015 BKN030
>TEMPO 0103 3SM TSRA BR OVC015CB
>FM0300 16005KT 5SM SHRA BR OVC025CB
>FM0800 VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC040
>FM1400 18007KT P6SM BKN040
>FM2000 15006KT 5SM SHRA BR BKN025CB AMD NOT SKCED AFT 02Z
>
>what does "AMD NOT SKCED AFT 02Z" mean?
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Amendment not scheduled after 02Z (closing time).
> Michelle
> Ref Section 4 Page 3 AC00-45E

Amazing, isn't it, that after nearly forty years of broadband
communications, they still use phrasing(?) from the TELEGRAPH days.

And they wonder why pilots often fail to read that crap.


> John T wrote:
>
> >Here's a TAF for Elizabeth City, NC:
> >
> >TAF KECG 292350Z 300024 18005KT 6SM -SHRA BR SCT015 BKN030
> >TEMPO 0103 3SM TSRA BR OVC015CB
> >FM0300 16005KT 5SM SHRA BR OVC025CB
> >FM0800 VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC040
> >FM1400 18007KT P6SM BKN040
> >FM2000 15006KT 5SM SHRA BR BKN025CB AMD NOT SKCED AFT 02Z
> >
> >what does "AMD NOT SKCED AFT 02Z" mean?

[John T]

Michelle P wrote:
> Amendment not scheduled after 02Z (closing time).
> Michelle
> Ref Section 4 Page 3 AC00-45E

Thanks!

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "Michelle P" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Amendment not scheduled after 02Z (closing time).
> > Michelle
> > Ref Section 4 Page 3 AC00-45E
>
> Amazing, isn't it, that after nearly forty years of broadband
> communications, they still use phrasing(?) from the TELEGRAPH days.
>
> And they wonder why pilots often fail to read that crap.


What is the alternative? Undecoded METARs/TAFs?

I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to pick
through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
nonsense in order to get the information. If you learn to read
undecoded METARs/TAFs, it's pretty easy to pick out a lot of information
very quickly.


JKG

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > "Michelle P" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > Amendment not scheduled after 02Z (closing time).
> > > Michelle
> > > Ref Section 4 Page 3 AC00-45E
> >
> > Amazing, isn't it, that after nearly forty years of broadband
> > communications, they still use phrasing(?) from the TELEGRAPH days.
> >
> > And they wonder why pilots often fail to read that crap.
>
>
> What is the alternative? Undecoded METARs/TAFs?
>
> I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to pick
> through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
> nonsense in order to get the information. If you learn to read
> undecoded METARs/TAFs, it's pretty easy to pick out a lot of information
> very quickly.

Amazing, isn't it, that after nearly forty years of broadband
communications, they still use phrasing(?) from the TELEGRAPH days.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > "Michelle P" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > Amendment not scheduled after 02Z (closing time).
> > > Michelle
> > > Ref Section 4 Page 3 AC00-45E
> >
> > Amazing, isn't it, that after nearly forty years of broadband
> > communications, they still use phrasing(?) from the TELEGRAPH days.
> >
> > And they wonder why pilots often fail to read that crap.
>
>
> What is the alternative? Undecoded METARs/TAFs?

Why not?

> I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to pick
> through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
> nonsense in order to get the information.

Wind and Temp data is nonsense?

> If you learn to read
> undecoded METARs/TAFs, it's pretty easy to pick out a lot of information
> very quickly.

Sounds rather like the "If you can't run a computer from the command line,
you shouldn't be on it!" crowd. That was a popular refrain from the Unix
gang. I wonder how many of those are on the outs right now, with the IT
industry going south? "Requirements? We don't do requirements; you'll get it
the way we want to do it".

Automatic transmissions?

In my industry it's pneumatic nailers and factory built components. We build
houses using 40% of the manhours and have better fit, finish and materials
than the "Big Boys".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jose]

>> I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to pick
>> through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
>> nonsense in order to get the information.
> Wind and Temp data is nonsense?

I think what he means is that the word "wind" and "temperature" is
nonsense if you already know which numbers they are. (He probably also
mistyped "undecoded" for "decoded into prose")

For example, once you really know the format,
FM0800 VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC040
is easier to read than
"from 8:00 Greenwich Mean Time until 14:00 Greenwich Mean time (2:00 pm
in England), the winds will be variable at three knots, visibility will
be three statute miles in mist and the ceiling will be overcast at four
thousand feet above ground level."

This is especially true when you stack a bunch of them up to spot a
trend, or are getting the METAR from a PDA or internet cell phone.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:31:54 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>Greenwich Mean time

Actually, Universal Coordinated Time. We no longer tell time by the
stars at Greenwich Observatory.

And if the U.S. gets it way, we will no longer tell time by the sun,
either. The plan is to abolish Leap Seconds, and instead have a Leap
Hour every 500 years or so. Evidently this is easier on the computer
programmers.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[CriticalMass]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:


> What is the alternative? Undecoded METARs/TAFs?

Obviously, plain-language. Where's the compelling reason to make trying
to read them a goat-rope? All the encoded BS is a relic of a prior era,
driven by the technology of that era, and now, well overtaken by events
and several generations of newer technology that make it embarrassingly
obsolete.

Your tax dollars at work.

[Casey Wilson]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>> I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to pick
>>> through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
>>> nonsense in order to get the information.
>> Wind and Temp data is nonsense?
>
> I think what he means is that the word "wind" and "temperature" is
> nonsense if you already know which numbers they are. (He probably also
> mistyped "undecoded" for "decoded into prose")
>
> For example, once you really know the format,
> FM0800 VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC040
> is easier to read than
> "from 8:00 Greenwich Mean Time until 14:00 Greenwich Mean time (2:00 pm in
> England), the winds will be variable at three knots, visibility will be
> three statute miles in mist and the ceiling will be overcast at four
> thousand feet above ground level."
>
> This is especially true when you stack a bunch of them up to spot a trend,
> or are getting the METAR from a PDA or internet cell phone.
>
Bravo, Jose.... You made the point exactly
Let's keep the "shorthand" as is.

[[email protected]]

CriticalMass wrote:
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> > What is the alternative? Undecoded METARs/TAFs?
>
> Obviously, plain-language. Where's the compelling reason to make trying
> to read them a goat-rope? All the encoded BS is a relic of a prior era,
> driven by the technology of that era, and now, well overtaken by events
> and several generations of newer technology that make it embarrassingly
> obsolete.

Not entirely. I get weather data on my cell phone which doesn't have a
ton of screen space and can get an entire TAF cycle in about two
screens which is quite convenient. The thing I have the most trouble
with is converting from zulu to local time. Flying a plane I can handle
but simple arithmetic seems to elude me.

-cwk.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>screens which is quite convenient. The thing I have the most trouble
>with is converting from zulu to local time. Flying a plane I can handle
>but simple arithmetic seems to elude me.

That's why I have a watch with two time zones, so I can forget about local
time and do everything in zulu when I'm flying.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I got accused of being humorless last night. I'm considering quoting
Lieutenant Commander Data: "Perhaps the joke was not funny."
-- Alan Rosenthal

[Peter R.]

Jose > wrote:

> For example, once you really know the format,
> FM0800 VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC040
> is easier to read than
> "from 8:00 Greenwich Mean Time until 14:00 Greenwich Mean time (2:00 pm
> in England), the winds will be variable at three knots, visibility will
> be three statute miles in mist and the ceiling will be overcast at four
> thousand feet above ground level."

When retrieving a briefing via DUATS, I always choose the "Plain Language"
option. However, I do this solely to read the NOTAMS and FA Synopsis
sections of the brief.

The TAFS and METARS I read and comprehend much faster in their native
format.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
CriticalMass > wrote:

> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
>
> > What is the alternative? Undecoded METARs/TAFs?
>
> Obviously, plain-language. Where's the compelling reason to make trying
> to read them a goat-rope? All the encoded BS is a relic of a prior era,
> driven by the technology of that era, and now, well overtaken by events
> and several generations of newer technology that make it embarrassingly
> obsolete.


The problem with plain language (undecoded) is that I want the data, not
excess verbiage. I can look at a METAR and TAF and get ONLY the data,
which is a heck of a lot quicker than reading through some verbose plain
language translation.

CSC DUATs will provide plain language translations if you want, and it
seems to do a good job. Lots of wasted space for a little bit of
information, in my opinion.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to pick
> > through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
> > nonsense in order to get the information.
>
> Wind and Temp data is nonsense?

The data is not, the excess verbiage of "Wind" and "Temperature" is.



> Sounds rather like the "If you can't run a computer from the command line,
> you shouldn't be on it!" crowd. That was a popular refrain from the Unix
> gang. I wonder how many of those are on the outs right now, with the IT
> industry going south? "Requirements? We don't do requirements; you'll get it
> the way we want to do it".

Not really. The bottom line is that decoded METARs/TAFs provide a lot
of information in a small package, and it can be read very quickly.
Plain language briefings are cumbersome by comparison. I know of at
least one briefing provider that has an option for undecoded, and that
is CSC DUATs.

The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing
wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have
to learn how to read it, though.



JKG

[Matt Barrow]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4BNGe.2746$Tk6.2417@trnddc02...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to
pick
> >>> through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
> >>> nonsense in order to get the information.
> >> Wind and Temp data is nonsense?
> >
> > I think what he means is that the word "wind" and "temperature" is
> > nonsense if you already know which numbers they are. (He probably also
> > mistyped "undecoded" for "decoded into prose")
> >
> > For example, once you really know the format,
> > FM0800 VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC040
> > is easier to read than

> > "from 8:00 Greenwich Mean Time until 14:00 Greenwich Mean time (2:00 pm
in
> > England), the winds will be variable at three knots, visibility will be
> > three statute miles in mist and the ceiling will be overcast at four
> > thousand feet above ground level."

That's not the format plain English would use.

> >
> > This is especially true when you stack a bunch of them up to spot a
trend,
> > or are getting the METAR from a PDA or internet cell phone.
> >
> Bravo, Jose.... You made the point exactly
> Let's keep the "shorthand" as is.

Are you willing to go back to 1200BPS modems and tet only web pages?

Why not?

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> CriticalMass wrote:
> > Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> >
> > > What is the alternative? Undecoded METARs/TAFs?
> >
> > Obviously, plain-language. Where's the compelling reason to make trying
> > to read them a goat-rope? All the encoded BS is a relic of a prior era,
> > driven by the technology of that era, and now, well overtaken by events
> > and several generations of newer technology that make it embarrassingly
> > obsolete.
>
> Not entirely. I get weather data on my cell phone which doesn't have a
> ton of screen space and can get an entire TAF cycle in about two
> screens which is quite convenient. The thing I have the most trouble
> with is converting from zulu to local time. Flying a plane I can handle
> but simple arithmetic seems to elude me.
>
Yeah, let's stay in the middle ages so that you can use your cell phone.

Cripes!!

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The problem with plain language (undecoded) is that I want the data, not
> excess verbiage. I can look at a METAR and TAF and get ONLY the data,
> which is a heck of a lot quicker than reading through some verbose plain
> language translation.
>
> CSC DUATs will provide plain language translations if you want, and it
> seems to do a good job. Lots of wasted space for a little bit of
> information, in my opinion.
>

Y DO U CAR WH FMT TS IN? :~)

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > > I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to
pick
> > > through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
> > > nonsense in order to get the information.
> >
> > Wind and Temp data is nonsense?
>
> The data is not, the excess verbiage of "Wind" and "Temperature" is.
>
>
>
> > Sounds rather like the "If you can't run a computer from the command
line,
> > you shouldn't be on it!" crowd. That was a popular refrain from the Unix
> > gang. I wonder how many of those are on the outs right now, with the IT
> > industry going south? "Requirements? We don't do requirements; you'll
get it
> > the way we want to do it".
>
> Not really. The bottom line is that decoded METARs/TAFs provide a lot
> of information in a small package, and it can be read very quickly.
> Plain language briefings are cumbersome by comparison. I know of at
> least one briefing provider that has an option for undecoded, and that
> is CSC DUATs.
>
> The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing
> wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have
> to learn how to read it, though.
>
>
Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity, but
then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~)

[nooneimportant]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>> > > I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to
> pick
>> > > through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
>> > > nonsense in order to get the information.
>> >
>> > Wind and Temp data is nonsense?
>>
>> The data is not, the excess verbiage of "Wind" and "Temperature" is.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Sounds rather like the "If you can't run a computer from the command
> line,
>> > you shouldn't be on it!" crowd. That was a popular refrain from the
>> > Unix
>> > gang. I wonder how many of those are on the outs right now, with the IT
>> > industry going south? "Requirements? We don't do requirements; you'll
> get it
>> > the way we want to do it".
>>
>> Not really. The bottom line is that decoded METARs/TAFs provide a lot
>> of information in a small package, and it can be read very quickly.
>> Plain language briefings are cumbersome by comparison. I know of at
>> least one briefing provider that has an option for undecoded, and that
>> is CSC DUATs.
>>
>> The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing
>> wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have
>> to learn how to read it, though.
>>
>>
> Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity,
> but
> then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~)
>
>
>

The truth is that We like our old fashioned metars and tafs... yes i do
think they could be a little more clear, but do find it easier to quickly
read over one or two lines, then to parse through a longer undecoded format.
I can look at a TAF and spot trends very quickly, or look at multiple metars
on a page and instantly pick out temps, winds etc without having to look for
specific words. If you dont' like it, get your imformation from ADDS, DUATS
or any number of other sources that give the option of "Plain Language"
data. Now i do think plain language formats would be ideal for NOTAMS and
such, but leave TAFs and METARs alone, especially considering all you have
to do is call up your local FSS briefer, and he will decode and read the
damn thing to you anyway if you want.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > The problem with plain language (undecoded) is that I want the data, not
> > excess verbiage. I can look at a METAR and TAF and get ONLY the data,
> > which is a heck of a lot quicker than reading through some verbose plain
> > language translation.
> >
> > CSC DUATs will provide plain language translations if you want, and it
> > seems to do a good job. Lots of wasted space for a little bit of
> > information, in my opinion.
> >
>
> Y DO U CAR WH FMT TS IN? :~)

Since you asked, I care because I want to brief quickly. I can look
down through a string of METARs and TAFs and get a weather picture
pretty quickly. If I had to read all of the excess verbiage on a plain
language briefing, it wouldn't be as quick or easy to put that picture
together.

I'm not saying that others should like the encoded stuff, but it's there
for a reason, not simply because the government doesn't want to change
it.


JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing
> > wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have
> > to learn how to read it, though.
> >
> >
> Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity, but
> then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~)


There is noting unclear about an encoded briefing. A plain language
briefing does nothing to change or clarify the data.



JKG

[Jose]

> That's not the format plain English would use.

No, but it serves for illustration. Stack up five METARS and five
translations, and then try to pick out the temp/dewpoint trend from each
set.

> Are you willing to go back to 1200BPS modems and te[x]t only web pages?

Yes. I did that with CBAV (RIP). I have animation, video, flash,
popups, banners, blink tags, and all that "exciting" stuff turned off in
my browser, force-disabled in some cases.

> Why not?

You presume.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > > The problem with plain language (undecoded) is that I want the data,
not
> > > excess verbiage. I can look at a METAR and TAF and get ONLY the data,
> > > which is a heck of a lot quicker than reading through some verbose
plain
> > > language translation.
> > >
> > > CSC DUATs will provide plain language translations if you want, and it
> > > seems to do a good job. Lots of wasted space for a little bit of
> > > information, in my opinion.
> > >
> >
> > Y DO U CAR WH FMT TS IN? :~)
>
> Since you asked, I care because I want to brief quickly. I can look
> down through a string of METARs and TAFs and get a weather picture
> pretty quickly. If I had to read all of the excess verbiage on a plain
> language briefing, it wouldn't be as quick or easy to put that picture
> together.

How much longer, using plain English rether than two or three character
contractions, would a TAF or METAR be?

How much more would an entire briefing be using SCATTERED rather than SCT,
Former instead of FMT...

>
> I'm not saying that others should like the encoded stuff, but it's there
> for a reason, not simply because the government doesn't want to change
> it.

IMBWB that's EXACTLY why they haven't changed. :~)

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > > The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing
> > > wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do
have
> > > to learn how to read it, though.
> > >
> > >
> > Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity,
but
> > then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~)
>
>
> There is noting unclear about an encoded briefing. A plain language
> briefing does nothing to change or clarify the data.
>

BS.

[Matt Whiting]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>>>The problem with plain language (undecoded) is that I want the data, not
>>>excess verbiage. I can look at a METAR and TAF and get ONLY the data,
>>>which is a heck of a lot quicker than reading through some verbose plain
>>>language translation.
>>>
>>>CSC DUATs will provide plain language translations if you want, and it
>>>seems to do a good job. Lots of wasted space for a little bit of
>>>information, in my opinion.
>>>
>>
>>Y DO U CAR WH FMT TS IN? :~)
>
>
> Since you asked, I care because I want to brief quickly. I can look
> down through a string of METARs and TAFs and get a weather picture
> pretty quickly. If I had to read all of the excess verbiage on a plain
> language briefing, it wouldn't be as quick or easy to put that picture
> together.

The interesting point is that if you want your kids chat on IM or
similar, you will see shorthand very similar to the above and to what is
in our aviation weather reporst! And they use it for the same basic
reason that teletype adopted it decades ago. It is fast and efficient
and, if you know the codes/acronyms, just as clear as plain text. I
guess what goes around comes around...

Matt

[Jose]

> How much more would an entire briefing be using SCATTERED rather than SCT,
> Former instead of FMT...

It wouldn't line up vertically. This makes it harder to see trends. It
would take up more space on tiny displays - not everyone uses a 20 inch
computer screen in the cockpit, or when walking around.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Chris G.]

There's one other option if you don't want to read the raw wx
data...1-800-WX-BRIEF.

Personally, I don't mind the undecoded data at all.

Chris


nooneimportant wrote:
>
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to
>>
>>pick
>>
>>>>>through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
>>>>>nonsense in order to get the information.
>>>>
>>>>Wind and Temp data is nonsense?
>>>
>>>The data is not, the excess verbiage of "Wind" and "Temperature" is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sounds rather like the "If you can't run a computer from the command
>>
>>line,
>>
>>>>you shouldn't be on it!" crowd. That was a popular refrain from the
>>>>Unix
>>>>gang. I wonder how many of those are on the outs right now, with the IT
>>>>industry going south? "Requirements? We don't do requirements; you'll
>>
>>get it
>>
>>>>the way we want to do it".
>>>
>>>Not really. The bottom line is that decoded METARs/TAFs provide a lot
>>>of information in a small package, and it can be read very quickly.
>>>Plain language briefings are cumbersome by comparison. I know of at
>>>least one briefing provider that has an option for undecoded, and that
>>>is CSC DUATs.
>>>
>>>The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing
>>>wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have
>>>to learn how to read it, though.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity,
>>but
>>then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The truth is that We like our old fashioned metars and tafs... yes i do
> think they could be a little more clear, but do find it easier to quickly
> read over one or two lines, then to parse through a longer undecoded format.
> I can look at a TAF and spot trends very quickly, or look at multiple metars
> on a page and instantly pick out temps, winds etc without having to look for
> specific words. If you dont' like it, get your imformation from ADDS, DUATS
> or any number of other sources that give the option of "Plain Language"
> data. Now i do think plain language formats would be ideal for NOTAMS and
> such, but leave TAFs and METARs alone, especially considering all you have
> to do is call up your local FSS briefer, and he will decode and read the
> damn thing to you anyway if you want.
>
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> >
> >
> > Since you asked, I care because I want to brief quickly. I can look
> > down through a string of METARs and TAFs and get a weather picture
> > pretty quickly. If I had to read all of the excess verbiage on a plain
> > language briefing, it wouldn't be as quick or easy to put that picture
> > together.
>
> The interesting point is that if you want your kids chat on IM or
> similar, you will see shorthand very similar to the above and to what is
> in our aviation weather reporst! And they use it for the same basic
> reason that teletype adopted it decades ago. It is fast and efficient
> and, if you know the codes/acronyms, just as clear as plain text. I
> guess what goes around comes around...
>

You're conflating READING and WRITING.

If you read normally, abbreviations (SCT vs Scattered) makes a difference of
milliseconds. Comprehending what's actually written takes MUCH longer.

Sorry, but that whole (fast brief) thing strikes me as rather bogus.

[john smith]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> You're conflating READING and WRITING.
> If you read normally, abbreviations (SCT vs Scattered) makes a difference of
> milliseconds. Comprehending what's actually written takes MUCH longer.
> Sorry, but that whole (fast brief) thing strikes me as rather bogus.

Practice, practice, practice!

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > You're conflating READING and WRITING.
> > If you read normally, abbreviations (SCT vs Scattered) makes a
difference of
> > milliseconds. Comprehending what's actually written takes MUCH longer.
> > Sorry, but that whole (fast brief) thing strikes me as rather bogus.
>
> Practice, practice, practice!

Every day...a hundred pages!

[Andrew Sarangan]

It is easier to write PDA than Personal Digital Assistant, USA than
United States of America, or C172 than Cessna one seventy two. It is
also ironic that you wrote WX instead of WEATHER in your subject line.

Acronyms have little to do with bandwidth. It has everything to do with
ease of reading.





Jose > wrote in news:_oDGe.2735$gt5.616
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

>>> I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to
pick
>>> through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal
>>> nonsense in order to get the information.
>> Wind and Temp data is nonsense?
>
> I think what he means is that the word "wind" and "temperature" is
> nonsense if you already know which numbers they are. (He probably
also
> mistyped "undecoded" for "decoded into prose")
>
> For example, once you really know the format,
> FM0800 VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC040
> is easier to read than
> "from 8:00 Greenwich Mean Time until 14:00 Greenwich Mean time (2:00
pm
> in England), the winds will be variable at three knots, visibility
will
> be three statute miles in mist and the ceiling will be overcast at
four
> thousand feet above ground level."
>
> This is especially true when you stack a bunch of them up to spot a
> trend, or are getting the METAR from a PDA or internet cell phone.
>
> Jose

[CriticalMass]

Jose wrote:
>> How much more would an entire briefing be using SCATTERED rather than
>> SCT,
>> Former instead of FMT...
>
>
> It wouldn't line up vertically. This makes it harder to see trends.

Oh, jeesh. Altogether now, "DON GREEN EYESHADES!".


> It would take up more space on tiny displays - not everyone uses a 20 inch
> computer screen in the cockpit, or when walking around.

And no one is going to convince me all that many people are getting
their briefs on "tiny screens or when walking around". Some are, sure.
But with nothing to prove it, I bet the vast majority use desktop
terminals to do it, either at home, or at the airport, where they are
normally available.

All your statement does is corroborate what most people already know -
"tiny screens" aren't very useful for surfing the web or gathering data.

[CriticalMass]

john smith wrote:


> Practice, practice, practice!

"Practice" what, early 20th century technology when we're into the 21st
century? I have better things to use my memory for when I fly.