METAR code

[[email protected]]

I haven't seen this before:

DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49

It came out of this:

KAUS 182153Z 01014KT 4SM -RA BR OVC009 02/01 A3012 RMK AO2
DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49 SLP206 P0002 T00220011

I can't really get it.

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:42:31 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>I haven't seen this before:
>
>DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49
>
>It came out of this:
>
>KAUS 182153Z 01014KT 4SM -RA BR OVC009 02/01 A3012 RMK AO2
>DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49 SLP206 P0002 T00220011
>
>I can't really get it.


Try the "translated" option on adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov

[[email protected]]

> >I haven't seen this before:
>
> >DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49

>
> Try the "translated" option on adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov

Appears to be a secret code also on that. Here's the translation,
which doesn't include that neat bit above:

METAR text: KAUS 182153Z 01014KT 4SM -RA BR OVC009 02/01 A3012 RMK
AO2 DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49 SLP206 P0002 T00220011
Conditions at: KAUS (AUSTIN, TX, US) observed 2153 UTC 18 January
2008
Temperature: 2.2°C (36°F)
Dewpoint: 1.1°C (34°F) [RH = 92%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.12 inches Hg (1020.1 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1020.6 mb]
Winds: from the N (10 degrees) at 16 MPH (14 knots; 7.3 m/s)
Visibility: 4 miles (6 km)
Ceiling: 900 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 900 feet AGL
Weather: -RA BR (light rain, mist)

[Bob Gardner]

Do you have a copy of Aviation Weather Services, AC 00-45E? DZ is drizzle, E
means ended, B means began, RA means rain,. UP is not included in the list
of abbreviations and acronyms, but whatever it is, it began at 47 and ended
at 49....hardly long enough to note if it is a weather phenomenon (UPD means
updraft, but that is weird in a METAR context). The AC is well worth adding
to your library, because it has three full pages of URLs for weather info,
etc.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
> >I haven't seen this before:
>
> >DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49

>
> Try the "translated" option on adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov

Appears to be a secret code also on that. Here's the translation,
which doesn't include that neat bit above:

METAR text: KAUS 182153Z 01014KT 4SM -RA BR OVC009 02/01 A3012 RMK
AO2 DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49 SLP206 P0002 T00220011
Conditions at: KAUS (AUSTIN, TX, US) observed 2153 UTC 18 January
2008
Temperature: 2.2°C (36°F)
Dewpoint: 1.1°C (34°F) [RH = 92%]
Pressure (altimeter): 30.12 inches Hg (1020.1 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1020.6 mb]
Winds: from the N (10 degrees) at 16 MPH (14 knots; 7.3 m/s)
Visibility: 4 miles (6 km)
Ceiling: 900 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 900 feet AGL
Weather: -RA BR (light rain, mist)

[Ridge]

UP = Unknown Precip.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Do you have a copy of Aviation Weather Services, AC 00-45E? DZ is drizzle,
> E means ended, B means began, RA means rain,. UP is not included in the
> list of abbreviations and acronyms, but whatever it is, it began at 47 and
> ended at 49....hardly long enough to note if it is a weather phenomenon
> (UPD means updraft, but that is weird in a METAR context). The AC is well
> worth adding to your library, because it has three full pages of URLs for
> weather info, etc.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> >I haven't seen this before:
>>
>> >DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49
>
>>
>> Try the "translated" option on adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov
>
> Appears to be a secret code also on that. Here's the translation,
> which doesn't include that neat bit above:
>
> METAR text: KAUS 182153Z 01014KT 4SM -RA BR OVC009 02/01 A3012 RMK
> AO2 DZE04B20E34RAB04E20B49UPB47E49 SLP206 P0002 T00220011
> Conditions at: KAUS (AUSTIN, TX, US) observed 2153 UTC 18 January
> 2008
> Temperature: 2.2°C (36°F)
> Dewpoint: 1.1°C (34°F) [RH = 92%]
> Pressure (altimeter): 30.12 inches Hg (1020.1 mb)
> [Sea-level pressure: 1020.6 mb]
> Winds: from the N (10 degrees) at 16 MPH (14 knots; 7.3 m/s)
> Visibility: 4 miles (6 km)
> Ceiling: 900 feet AGL
> Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 900 feet AGL
> Weather: -RA BR (light rain, mist)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you have a copy of Aviation Weather Services, AC 00-45E? DZ is drizzle,
> E means ended, B means began, RA means rain,. UP is not included in the
> list of abbreviations and acronyms, but whatever it is, it began at 47 and
> ended at 49....hardly long enough to note if it is a weather phenomenon
> (UPD means updraft, but that is weird in a METAR context). The AC is well
> worth adding to your library, because it has three full pages of URLs for
> weather info, etc.
>

UP is unknown precipitation.

[[email protected]]

> > Do you have a copy of Aviation Weather Services, AC 00-45E? DZ is drizzle,
> > E means ended, B means began, RA means rain,. UP is not included in the
> > list of abbreviations and acronyms, but whatever it is, it began at 47 and
> > ended at 49....hardly long enough to note if it is a weather phenomenon
> > (UPD means updraft, but that is weird in a METAR context). The AC is well
> > worth adding to your library, because it has three full pages of URLs for
> > weather info, etc.
>
> UP is unknown precipitation.

Actually yes to AC 00-45E, but it's inaccessible at another house. I
figured DZ was drizzle and RAB was "rain began" but forgot what E was,
and then UP.

Thanks.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I can't really get it.

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and modernized,
that they are still transmitting weather information encoded for teletype
machines?

Sure, we all learn(ed) to parse it (with notable exceptions like this one),
but it's not like they lack bandwidth anymore.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > I can't really get it.

> Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and modernized,
> that they are still transmitting weather information encoded for teletype
> machines?

Not when you concider that by treaty we have to be compatible with the
third world and non English speaking pilots.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Chris Rowland]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > I can't really get it.
>
> Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and modernized,
> that they are still transmitting weather information encoded for teletype
> machines?
>
> Sure, we all learn(ed) to parse it (with notable exceptions like this one),
> but it's not like they lack bandwidth anymore.

Not everyone receiving weather data has a fast data connection. And while one
METAR may be small, getting the full set of METARs from every station,
worldwide, can get quite large, even with condensed format. Storing that data
for a while could be even more difficult with an expanded format, that still
contained the same basic data. Having a (mostly) standardized format is useful
for reading too, I can quickly parse many METARs for a flight very quickly, much
faster than when the data is in plain English (or any language).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Chris Rowland > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> > I can't really get it.
>>
>> Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and
>> modernized, that they are still transmitting weather information
>> encoded for teletype machines?
>>
>> Sure, we all learn(ed) to parse it (with notable exceptions like this
>> one), but it's not like they lack bandwidth anymore.
>
> Not everyone receiving weather data has a fast data connection. And
> while one METAR may be small, getting the full set of METARs from
> every station, worldwide, can get quite large, even with condensed
> format. Storing that data for a while could be even more difficult
> with an expanded format, that still contained the same basic data.
> Having a (mostly) standardized format is useful for reading too, I can
> quickly parse many METARs for a flight very quickly, much faster than
> when the data is in plain English (or any language).



I can do it faster in Chinese.

Bertie

[JOM]

I've got to side with Jay on this one. Given modern technology there is no reason for anything other than plain english. While Chris may be able to parse this, there are a lot of pilots that can't. This is evident by the amount of effort needed to translate this. Having to dig up the books to figure out the less used phrases is really safety of flight thing. I don't think there is any good reason for anything less than palin english.

John


Jay Honeck wrote:

I can't really get it.

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and modernized,
that they are still transmitting weather information encoded for teletype
machines?

Sure, we all learn(ed) to parse it (with notable exceptions like this one),
but it's not like they lack bandwidth anymore.

Not everyone receiving weather data has a fast data connection. And while one
METAR may be small, getting the full set of METARs from every station,
worldwide, can get quite large, even with condensed format. Storing that data
for a while could be even more difficult with an expanded format, that still
contained the same basic data. Having a (mostly) standardized format is useful
for reading too, I can quickly parse many METARs for a flight very quickly, much
faster than when the data is in plain English (or any language).

[JOM]

I thought English is the international standard language for aviation. All international control towers at major airports speak english, don't they? I have heard stories about how sometimes it was't so good, but english was the language that was spoken.

Jay Honeck wrote:
I can't really get it.

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and modernized,
that they are still transmitting weather information encoded for teletype
machines?

Not when you concider that by treaty we have to be compatible with the
third world and non English speaking pilots.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jackal24]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Eqnkj.42544$Ux2.7685@attbi_s22:

>> I can't really get it.
>
> Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and
> modernized, that they are still transmitting weather information
> encoded for teletype machines?
>
> Sure, we all learn(ed) to parse it (with notable exceptions like this
> one), but it's not like they lack bandwidth anymore.

Most pilots I know can read the METARs and TAFs quicker when they are NOT
decoded into plain english.

[gatt[_2_]]

"Jackal24" > wrote in message
...

> Most pilots I know can read the METARs and TAFs quicker when they are NOT
> decoded into plain english.

I keep a little reference booklet in my flight bag. I just hate having to
remember the crap for written exams.

-c

[Stefan]

Jackal24 schrieb:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote

>> Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and
>> modernized, that they are still transmitting weather information
>> encoded for teletype machines?

> Most pilots I know can read the METARs and TAFs quicker when they are NOT
> decoded into plain english.

Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the
airports which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In
abreviated form I can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute
with a glance, like in a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I
often don't even really read them, it's more a pattern recognition.
Maybe it's just the first sign of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to wade
through all that verbose jabber of ten "cler text METARs", I probably
would have forgotten the first when I arrive at the third.

Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take
one unit of something and then add another unit of that same something,
then as a result of such behaviour you will have two units of that
something"?

[akjcbkJA]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Jackal24 schrieb:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>>> Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and
>>> modernized, that they are still transmitting weather information
>>> encoded for teletype machines?
>
>> Most pilots I know can read the METARs and TAFs quicker when they are NOT
>> decoded into plain english.
>
> Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the airports
> which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In abreviated form I
> can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute with a glance, like in
> a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I often don't even really
> read them, it's more a pattern recognition. Maybe it's just the first sign
> of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to wade through all that verbose jabber
> of ten "cler text METARs", I probably would have forgotten the first when
> I arrive at the third.
>
> Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
> mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take one
> unit of something and then add another unit of that same something, then
> as a result of such behaviour you will have two units of that something"?

spot on.

[Jim Logajan]

Stefan > wrote:
> Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the
> airports which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In
> abreviated form I can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute
> with a glance, like in a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I
> often don't even really read them, it's more a pattern recognition.
> Maybe it's just the first sign of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to
> wade through all that verbose jabber of ten "cler text METARs", I
> probably would have forgotten the first when I arrive at the third.

How long did it take you to learn to use METARs this way? And are you
saying this is why METAR coding was designed the way it was?

> Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
> mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take
> one unit of something and then add another unit of that same
> something, then as a result of such behaviour you will have two units
> of that something"?

First, the english language translation of 1+1=2 is "One plus one equal
two" - not what your wrote, which was your own semantic version.

Second, METAR code isn't taught in elementary school but math notation is.

The translation of METAR code to english is accomplished roughly one-for-
one similar to the mechanism I used than the odd translation you used.

Lastly, other than inertia, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to
continue to use METAR code. What problem does it solve that use of english
cannot solve?

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Stefan > wrote:
> > Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the
> > airports which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In
> > abreviated form I can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute
> > with a glance, like in a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I
> > often don't even really read them, it's more a pattern recognition.
> > Maybe it's just the first sign of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to
> > wade through all that verbose jabber of ten "cler text METARs", I
> > probably would have forgotten the first when I arrive at the third.

> How long did it take you to learn to use METARs this way? And are you
> saying this is why METAR coding was designed the way it was?

> > Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
> > mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take
> > one unit of something and then add another unit of that same
> > something, then as a result of such behaviour you will have two units
> > of that something"?

> First, the english language translation of 1+1=2 is "One plus one equal
> two" - not what your wrote, which was your own semantic version.

> Second, METAR code isn't taught in elementary school but math notation is.

> The translation of METAR code to english is accomplished roughly one-for-
> one similar to the mechanism I used than the odd translation you used.

> Lastly, other than inertia, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to
> continue to use METAR code. What problem does it solve that use of english
> cannot solve?

Being understandable to those who's native language isn't English.

And conversely, if you fly into a country where the native language
isn't English, you will be able to understand METAR code.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Stefan]

Jim Logajan schrieb:

> How long did it take you to learn to use METARs this way?

I don't know, but not too long. After using METARs for a year or so I
just happened to realise that I could use them in this way.

> And are you
> saying this is why METAR coding was designed the way it was?

No. But it's a very welcome side effect.

> First, the english language translation of 1+1=2 is "One plus one equal
> two" - not what your wrote, which was your own semantic version.

You don't realize that "One plus one equal two" is already highly coded
mathematical language and not plain "natural" English at all. If you
break it down to really natural language, you will get the sentence I
wrote or something similiar.

> Second, METAR code isn't taught in elementary school but math notation is.

So you say that METARs should be taught in elementary school? Or are you
rather saying that a pilot should not learn anything beyond elementary
school? (Hint: Operating an airplane isn't taught in elementary school,
either.)

> Lastly, other than inertia, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to
> continue to use METAR code.

There doesn't seem to be any valid reason to learn to read and write,
either, when you can listen to the radio rather than read a newspaper
and buy most books on audio CD.

> What problem does it solve that use of english cannot solve?

I answered this already.