Translate WX Forecast

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" 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? :~)

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" 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. :~)

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.

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.

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

"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.

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!

"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!