RAE42SNB42

[Dallas]

Why does the FAA persist in using a coded system for printed weather
reports and forecasts?

They act like kilobytes are expensive to transmit today... The last time I
saw a teletype machine was in 1974.

And the codes aren't even consistent, M for minus degrees in a METAR and -
for minus degrees in a PIREP. Am I wrong in thinking this old system is
confusing and therefore unsafe?

--
Dallas

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 23:01:09 GMT, Dallas
> wrote:

>
>Why does the FAA persist in using a coded system for printed weather
>reports and forecasts?

Your subject line is an easy one, and I get plain English DUATS
briefings. <G>

FWIW, there's cheapie whiz wheels and cheat sheets available for
checking the less common abbreviations.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dallas" wrote:

> Why does the FAA persist in using a coded system for printed weather
> reports and forecasts?

You're asking for a rational explanation for something the FAA does?

You might as well ask why Donald Duck doesn't wear pants.

--
Dan

"Don't make me nervous when I'm carryin' a baseball bat."
- Big Joe Turner

[Jim Logajan]

Dallas > wrote:
> Why does the FAA persist in using a coded system for printed weather
> reports and forecasts?

Snow forecast in July in the U.S.?

Or did I decode that wrong?

;-)

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:

> Why does the FAA persist in using a coded system for printed weather
> reports and forecasts?

> They act like kilobytes are expensive to transmit today... The last time I
> saw a teletype machine was in 1974.

> And the codes aren't even consistent, M for minus degrees in a METAR and -
> for minus degrees in a PIREP. Am I wrong in thinking this old system is
> confusing and therefore unsafe?

Because it's an international standard and all the stuff is in place
to handle it.

Use DUAT or DUATS if you want plain English.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter R.]

On 7/6/2007 7:53:45 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Snow forecast in July in the U.S.?
>
> Or did I decode that wrong?

Yes, you did decode that wrong. That is not from a forecast. :)

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 7/6/2007 7:01:12 PM, Dallas wrote:

> Am I wrong in thinking this old system is
> confusing and therefore unsafe?

In my experience the more you use it, the easier it is to read. In DUATs I
choose the option to decode the briefing into plain English but I only read
the English version for the area forecast and NOTAMs. I actually find it much
faster to read the METARs and TAFs in their coded format.


--
Peter

[Bob Gardner]

One more time...it is ICAO that dictates these things, not the FAA. The FAA
just conforms to ICAO standards.

Bob Gardner

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Why does the FAA persist in using a coded system for printed weather
> reports and forecasts?
>
> They act like kilobytes are expensive to transmit today... The last time
> I
> saw a teletype machine was in 1974.
>
> And the codes aren't even consistent, M for minus degrees in a METAR and -
> for minus degrees in a PIREP. Am I wrong in thinking this old system is
> confusing and therefore unsafe?
>
> --
> Dallas

[Bob Gardner]

Looks like "rain ended at 42, snow began at 42." What is the problem?

Bob Gardner

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Why does the FAA persist in using a coded system for printed weather
> reports and forecasts?
>
> They act like kilobytes are expensive to transmit today... The last time
> I
> saw a teletype machine was in 1974.
>
> And the codes aren't even consistent, M for minus degrees in a METAR and -
> for minus degrees in a PIREP. Am I wrong in thinking this old system is
> confusing and therefore unsafe?
>
> --
> Dallas

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:

> Use DUAT or DUATS if you want plain English.
>

DUAT does pretty good on the METARs but sometimes
it gets confused at odd contractions used in the
are forcast.

My favorites were always "Harrisburg, PA Turbulance"
(Harrisburg's identifier is MDT) and the decoding
of VSBYS as "Variable Snow Blowing Spray and Snow."

[Ron Natalie]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> One more time...it is ICAO that dictates these things, not the FAA. The
> FAA just conforms to ICAO standards.
>
The ICAO is just the latest insanity.

The old non-ICAO compliant SA's and FT's were just as
inane, so you can't blame the Frenchies for that.

[Dallas]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:37:06 -0700, Bob Gardner wrote:

> One more time...it is ICAO that dictates these things, not the FAA. The FAA
> just conforms to ICAO standards.

Back in the days before solid state memory, when copper wires and teletype
machines ruled, transmission time and printing time were equal. Cutting
out three fourths of the characters, numbers and spaces reduced
transmission and printing time by three fourths. In those days, coding was
a brilliant idea.

Today, a TAF can be sent in a fraction of a second to a CRT or laser
printer that uses the same amount of time to print a page with one
character as it does to print a page of War and Peace.

The original reason for coding has long since disappeared.

....Now, I'll answer my own question in light of your response that the ICAO
dictates these things.

Some where in China is a 20 year veteran pilot that would have to learn
that the new word for BR is mist.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:33:44 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

> You might as well ask why Donald Duck doesn't wear pants.

Oh, that's easy... so he can swim whenever he wants to.

:-)

Maybe a better question would be why have we never seen Donald Duck swim?
Or fly?

--
Dallas

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter R." > wrote:
> On 7/6/2007 7:53:45 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> Snow forecast in July in the U.S.?
>>
>> Or did I decode that wrong?
>
> Yes, you did decode that wrong. That is not from a forecast. :)

D'oh!

[Jon]

On Jul 7, 9:35 am, Dallas > wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:37:06 -0700, Bob Gardner wrote:
> > One more time...it is ICAO that dictates these things, not the FAA. The FAA
> > just conforms to ICAO standards.
>
> Back in the days before solid state memory, when copper wires and teletype
> machines ruled, transmission time and printing time were equal. Cutting
> out three fourths of the characters, numbers and spaces reduced
> transmission and printing time by three fourths. In those days, coding was
> a brilliant idea.
>
> Today, a TAF can be sent in a fraction of a second to a CRT or laser
> printer that uses the same amount of time to print a page with one
> character as it does to print a page of War and Peace.
>
> The original reason for coding has long since disappeared.

But there are still some legacy systems out there that are being
supported.

The architecture evolved into a rather impressive collection of
dissimilar systems, custom protocols. A true living, breathing example
of the old phrase "the great thing about standards is that there's so
many to choose from" producing a rather hairy beast indeed.

Modernization will help to (among other things) address this, but it
can't happen instantaneously without horribly breaking operational
systems and procedures. Action did indeed need to occur a while ago
but there's no point harping on that at this point, given the time
machine isn't even in Beta yet ;)

SWIM looks to be one part of the NAS Architecture that will facilitate
it getting there:

<http://nas-architecture.faa.gov/nas/Reference/documents/TR04008.doc>

> ...Now, I'll answer my own question in light of your response that the ICAO
> dictates these things.
>
> Some where in China is a 20 year veteran pilot that would have to learn
> that the new word for BR is mist.
>
> --
> Dallas

Just my personal take on it, FWIW (maybe more than you paid for it :P)

Regards,
Jon

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:35:56 GMT, Dallas
> wrote:

>Some where in China is a 20 year veteran pilot that would have to learn
>that the new word for BR is mist.


Baby rain, of course! <G>

[Dallas]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:52:23 -0400, B A R R Y wrote:

>that the new word for BR is mist.

> Baby rain, of course! <G>

I always wondered what that stood for...

<G>
--
Dallas

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:59:27 GMT, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:52:23 -0400, B A R R Y wrote:
>
>>that the new word for BR is mist.
>
>> Baby rain, of course! <G>
>
>I always wondered what that stood for...
>
><G>


Thank Martha King.

[Dallas]

Winds and Temperatures Aloft Forecast (FD)

To decode a forecast of winds between 100 and 199 knots, subtract 50 from
two-digit direction code and multiply by 10. Then, add 100 to the
two-digit wind speed code.


[Bangs head on table repeatedly]

:-)

Yeah, I know.. it's not that hard... but it drives me crazy.

--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:

> Winds and Temperatures Aloft Forecast (FD)

> To decode a forecast of winds between 100 and 199 knots, subtract 50 from
> two-digit direction code and multiply by 10. Then, add 100 to the
> two-digit wind speed code.


> [Bangs head on table repeatedly]

> :-)

> Yeah, I know.. it's not that hard... but it drives me crazy.

If the forecast wind is over 100 knots and it isn't the jet stream,
you have bigger issues to contend with.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ron Natalie]

Dallas wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:33:44 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> You might as well ask why Donald Duck doesn't wear pants.
>
> Oh, that's easy... so he can swim whenever he wants to.
>
> :-)
>
> Maybe a better question would be why have we never seen Donald Duck swim?
> Or fly?
>

The bigger question is why he doesn't wear pants but when he
gets out of the shower he wraps a towel around his waist?