weather shorthand

[pgbnh]

There was a time (probably right before I passed my Instrumenr written) when
I was pretty good at being able to read the shorthand used for weather
conditions, FA's, and the like. There was also a time when using shorthand
made sense - days of slow teletypes, limited memory, etc.

But does it still make sense? Would it not make more sense, and possibly
save some lives, if ALL weather was made available in plain English. So I
would not have to guess at the abbreviations, and hope that I had gotten it
right?

There is a certain amount of 'IFR-macho' to being able to interpret this
stuff, but is it time for a change?

[El Maximo]

"pgbnh" > wrote in message
. ..
> There was a time (probably right before I passed my Instrumenr written)
> when I was pretty good at being able to read the shorthand used for
> weather conditions, FA's, and the like. There was also a time when using
> shorthand made sense - days of slow teletypes, limited memory, etc.
>
> But does it still make sense? Would it not make more sense, and possibly
> save some lives, if ALL weather was made available in plain English. So I
> would not have to guess at the abbreviations, and hope that I had gotten
> it right?
>
> There is a certain amount of 'IFR-macho' to being able to interpret this
> stuff, but is it time for a change?
>

It works well with text messaging.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:02:39 -0400, "pgbnh" >
wrote:

>There was a time (probably right before I passed my Instrumenr written) when
>I was pretty good at being able to read the shorthand used for weather
>conditions, FA's, and the like. There was also a time when using shorthand
>made sense - days of slow teletypes, limited memory, etc.
>
>But does it still make sense? Would it not make more sense, and possibly
>save some lives, if ALL weather was made available in plain English. So I
>would not have to guess at the abbreviations, and hope that I had gotten it
>right?
>
>There is a certain amount of 'IFR-macho' to being able to interpret this
>stuff, but is it time for a change?
>


I thnk ur bng unrsnbl

[kevmor]

On Jun 29, 9:02 am, "pgbnh" > wrote:
> There was a time (probably right before I passed my Instrumenr written) when
> I was pretty good at being able to read the shorthand used for weather
> conditions, FA's, and the like. There was also a time when using shorthand
> made sense - days of slow teletypes, limited memory, etc.
>
> But does it still make sense? Would it not make more sense, and possibly
> save some lives, if ALL weather was made available in plain English. So I
> would not have to guess at the abbreviations, and hope that I had gotten it
> right?
>
> There is a certain amount of 'IFR-macho' to being able to interpret this
> stuff, but is it time for a change?

I think maybe if you read them every day, it may be faster if it's
abbreviated... but I totally agree, leave things like TAFs and METARs
abbreviated when there are only a few abbreviations to know, but on
FA's, it'd be nice to have it in plain english. I use this to help:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/glossary/index.php

[Dave Johnson]

Doesn't DUATS offer "plane English" (tongue in cheek)? Being an old buzzard
I still read the abbreviated, even when I can get it faster than 134.5 baud
(a fast Teletype years ago).

Dave

"pgbnh" > wrote in message
. ..
> There was a time (probably right before I passed my Instrumenr written)
> when I was pretty good at being able to read the shorthand used for
> weather conditions, FA's, and the like. There was also a time when using
> shorthand made sense - days of slow teletypes, limited memory, etc.
>
> But does it still make sense? Would it not make more sense, and possibly
> save some lives, if ALL weather was made available in plain English. So I
> would not have to guess at the abbreviations, and hope that I had gotten
> it right?
>
> There is a certain amount of 'IFR-macho' to being able to interpret this
> stuff, but is it time for a change?
>

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:55:32 GMT, "Dave Johnson" >
wrote:

>Doesn't DUATS offer "plane English" (tongue in cheek)?

I get every briefing this in plain English.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:37:06 -0000, kevmor > wrote:

>I think maybe if you read them every day, it may be faster if it's
>abbreviated...

There's a Mythbusters test! Many variables to create lasting dispute.
<G>

I would imagine that once you know both sets of words, your brain will
process them at exactly the same speed.

However, abbreviated text is faster to type and transmit
electronically.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:27:42 GMT, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:55:32 GMT, "Dave Johnson" >
>wrote:
>
>>Doesn't DUATS offer "plane English" (tongue in cheek)?

That one flew right over my head. <G>

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Jun 29, 12:02 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
> There was a time (probably right before I passed my Instrumenr written) when
> I was pretty good at being able to read the shorthand used for weather
> conditions, FA's, and the like. There was also a time when using shorthand
> made sense - days of slow teletypes, limited memory, etc.
>
> But does it still make sense? Would it not make more sense, and possibly
> save some lives, if ALL weather was made available in plain English. So I
> would not have to guess at the abbreviations, and hope that I had gotten it
> right?
>
> There is a certain amount of 'IFR-macho' to being able to interpret this
> stuff, but is it time for a change?

To see the benefit of abbreviated format, go to DUATS and get a
briefing for 500 mile trip. Print them on paper using their plain
english translator and the standard format. The plain English format
will take dozens of pages and it will be like reading a book. The
standard format will be a lot shorter and easier to interpret. Now try
reading while you are flying in a bouncing cockpit with dim lighting
and you can see how easy the short hand format is.

It is true that the cryptic form makes it difficult to learn the
codes. Perhaps it might be better if they dropped the French word
origins and used English abbreviations instead.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> To see the benefit of abbreviated format, go to DUATS and get a
> briefing for 500 mile trip. Print them on paper using their plain
> english translator and the standard format. The plain English format
> will take dozens of pages and it will be like reading a book. The
> standard format will be a lot shorter and easier to interpret. Now try
> reading while you are flying in a bouncing cockpit with dim lighting
> and you can see how easy the short hand format is.

I don't see a benefit of carrying hours-old printouts with me, compared
to fresh information obtained via HIWAS, Flight Watch, automated ground
stations, or onboard weather electronics.

To me, the distant weather is simply a sketch of what I might find along
the way. Any important information I want to have later can be noted in
the appropriate area on my knee pad flight plan form. Otherwise, isn't
it better to deal with what is, vs. what DUATS said it might be?

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Jul 2, 8:18 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> > To see the benefit of abbreviated format, go to DUATS and get a
> > briefing for 500 mile trip. Print them on paper using their plain
> > english translator and the standard format. The plain English format
> > will take dozens of pages and it will be like reading a book. The
> > standard format will be a lot shorter and easier to interpret. Now try
> > reading while you are flying in a bouncing cockpit with dim lighting
> > and you can see how easy the short hand format is.
>
> I don't see a benefit of carrying hours-old printouts with me, compared
> to fresh information obtained via HIWAS, Flight Watch, automated ground
> stations, or onboard weather electronics.
>
> To me, the distant weather is simply a sketch of what I might find along
> the way. Any important information I want to have later can be noted in
> the appropriate area on my knee pad flight plan form. Otherwise, isn't
> it better to deal with what is, vs. what DUATS said it might be?

Good point. But how about on your Garmin satlink weather? I can pull
up METAR and TAF data in a pinch. Imagine how it would be if it were
in plain language.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:21:29 -0000, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>Good point. But how about on your Garmin satlink weather? I can pull
>up METAR and TAF data in a pinch. Imagine how it would be if it were
>in plain language.

Long. <G>

[Bob Gardner]

ICAO rules the aviation world. The USA no longer carries a big stick.

Bob Gardner


"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 29, 12:02 pm, "pgbnh" > wrote:
>> There was a time (probably right before I passed my Instrumenr written)
>> when
>> I was pretty good at being able to read the shorthand used for weather
>> conditions, FA's, and the like. There was also a time when using
>> shorthand
>> made sense - days of slow teletypes, limited memory, etc.
>>
>> But does it still make sense? Would it not make more sense, and possibly
>> save some lives, if ALL weather was made available in plain English. So I
>> would not have to guess at the abbreviations, and hope that I had gotten
>> it
>> right?
>>
>> There is a certain amount of 'IFR-macho' to being able to interpret this
>> stuff, but is it time for a change?
>
> To see the benefit of abbreviated format, go to DUATS and get a
> briefing for 500 mile trip. Print them on paper using their plain
> english translator and the standard format. The plain English format
> will take dozens of pages and it will be like reading a book. The
> standard format will be a lot shorter and easier to interpret. Now try
> reading while you are flying in a bouncing cockpit with dim lighting
> and you can see how easy the short hand format is.
>
> It is true that the cryptic form makes it difficult to learn the
> codes. Perhaps it might be better if they dropped the French word
> origins and used English abbreviations instead.
>
>
>
>
>