Have you ever...

faky wrote:
I also think it's time for the FAA to get rid of all the abreviations in
FA,
TAF, METAR, PIREP, WX, etc. These abreviations are no longer neccesary
since
we aren't sending the data using morse code or 300 baud modems.

I always get the raw format - I can look at a bunch of airports and within a
few seconds see where the good weather is, and where the bad weather is.

I love the raw format and proud to admit it.

Maybe it's just me, but I can read (from adds.aviationweather.gov):

KSEA 210538Z 210606 25007KT P6SM FEW120 BKN200
FM1100 22005KT P6SM SCT006 SCT200
FM1300 22007KT 2SM BR OVC006
FM1700 VRB04KT P6SM BKN010
FM1900 34006KT P6SM SCT250=

a whole lot faster than:


Forecast for: KSEA
Text: KSEA 210538Z 210606 25007KT P6SM FEW120 BKN200
Forecast period: 0600 to 1100 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the WSW (250 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 20000 feet AGL
Clouds: few clouds at 12000 feet AGL
broken clouds at 20000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1100 22005KT P6SM SCT006 SCT200
Forecast period: 1100 to 1300 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the SW (220 degrees) at 6 MPH (5 knots; 2.6 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Clouds: scattered clouds at 600 feet AGL
scattered clouds at 20000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1300 22007KT 2SM BR OVC006
Forecast period: 1300 to 1700 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the SW (220 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 2.00 miles (3.22 km)
Ceiling: 600 feet AGL
Clouds: overcast cloud deck at 600 feet AGL
Weather: BR (mist)

Text: FM1700 VRB04KT P6SM BKN010
Forecast period: 1700 to 1900 UTC 21 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: variable direction winds at 5 MPH (4 knots; 2.1 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Ceiling: 1000 feet AGL
Clouds: broken clouds at 1000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period

Text: FM1900 34006KT P6SM SCT250
Forecast period: 1900 UTC 21 April 2005 to 0600 UTC 22 April 2005
Forecast type: FROM: standard forecast or significant change
Winds: from the NNW (340 degrees) at 7 MPH (6 knots; 3.1 m/s)
Visibility: 6 miles (10 km)
Clouds: scattered clouds at 25000 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather forecast for this period


Don't try this at home with numerous airports...

Hilton

Hilton wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but I can read
....Metar code...
a whole lot faster than:
....plain text

Me too. I think of it as an investment: You have to invest some work at
the beginning, but it will pay back with interests.

Stefan

I have no problems reading the weather codes...its all the different
charts and things that I have a issue with. More than I will probably
ever use as a PP.
Still, there is no reason to have abbrevations (sp) nowadays.


John

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:42:57 -0500, John T
wrote in
::

Still, there is no reason to have abbrevations (sp) nowadays.

I thought Hilton's argument* for their use was appropriate.


* See Message-ID:
. net

Roger wrote in
:

Snipola of life story

Well, I'm not going to write a big story about my life
but just say the not being out of work for 18 months
doesn't let one do much of anything.

BTW, I have zero debt. Nada. Zilch.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

John T wrote:

Still, there is no reason to have abbrevations (sp) nowadays.


Best reason in the world. Some people (you just replied to one) find it easier
to read than plain text.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:zQY9e.13448$Fm5.7887@trndny09...
John T wrote:

Still, there is no reason to have abbrevations (sp) nowadays.


Best reason in the world. Some people (you just replied to one) find it
easier to read than plain text.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

And some (in fact many) don't. Still, I'm not under the delusion that it's
ever going to change, so I keep practicing. ; )


--
Eric Paslick
PP-ASEL, A&P

------------------------------------------
"For real liturature can exist only when it's produced
By madmen, hermits, heretics,
Dreamers, rebels, sceptics -
And such a door of utterance has been given to me."
Christopher Murray Grieve (1892-1972)



----== 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 =----

I would eliminate the cost.

I fly often with an older gentleman who, although a private pilot, has
some shortcomings. He can't seem to figure out cross-wind takeoffs
and/or landings.
I don't just refuse to fly with him, I take the time to gently try to
keep him in the air, where he belongs. There have been occasions where
I have taken the controls from him, again in such a manner as to help
him.
I have another friend who, when his son was killed in Viet Nam, tried
to commit suicide. He noted this on his subsequent medical and we all
know what happened next.
He can only fly when I will go with him and act as the pilot in
command. He is a marginal pilot, but he still gets to fly.

If one is not a pilot, and gets into an airplane with an incompetent
pilot; well, that person takes his/her chances.

If one is a pilot, and someone does a poor or no pre-flight, and then
flies in such a manner as to endanger one, and does/says nothing,
there is no reason to complain about it.

And please don't tell me that you are too intimidated to speak up or
take the controls if the pilot is misbehaving. Reading the posts on
this board convinces me you are all type A personalities who would
never meekly let someone kill them.



On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:41:44 -0700, Toño
wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
...refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe? (With that
person acting as PIC, not as a passenger in your own plane.)

Absolutely !! And the guy was a good friend too. After a rather heated
discussion he ended up taking remedial training.

We don't speak much anymore...but he's still alive and, more
importantly, so am I ! ;-)


Toño

wrote in message

Reading the posts on this board convinces me you are all type A
personalities who would
never meekly let someone kill them.

Well, I'm decidedly type C.

There's people I won't take flying with me; I'd have no reservations balking
(politely) at a flight in which I wasn't comfortable with the pilot.

If a friend were flying and I thought they were doing something unsafe, I'd
find a constructive way to tell them my concern. If it may save their life,
it's no different than offering them a hand or throwing them a line if they
fell over the side of a boat. They're better off alive and hot then dead
and cold.

-c