If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message news "Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message ... In article , "Matt Barrow" wrote: I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to pick through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal nonsense in order to get the information. Wind and Temp data is nonsense? The data is not, the excess verbiage of "Wind" and "Temperature" is. Sounds rather like the "If you can't run a computer from the command line, you shouldn't be on it!" crowd. That was a popular refrain from the Unix gang. I wonder how many of those are on the outs right now, with the IT industry going south? "Requirements? We don't do requirements; you'll get it the way we want to do it". Not really. The bottom line is that decoded METARs/TAFs provide a lot of information in a small package, and it can be read very quickly. Plain language briefings are cumbersome by comparison. I know of at least one briefing provider that has an option for undecoded, and that is CSC DUATs. The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have to learn how to read it, though. Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity, but then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~) The truth is that We like our old fashioned metars and tafs... yes i do think they could be a little more clear, but do find it easier to quickly read over one or two lines, then to parse through a longer undecoded format. I can look at a TAF and spot trends very quickly, or look at multiple metars on a page and instantly pick out temps, winds etc without having to look for specific words. If you dont' like it, get your imformation from ADDS, DUATS or any number of other sources that give the option of "Plain Language" data. Now i do think plain language formats would be ideal for NOTAMS and such, but leave TAFs and METARs alone, especially considering all you have to do is call up your local FSS briefer, and he will decode and read the damn thing to you anyway if you want. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote: The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have to learn how to read it, though. Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity, but then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~) There is noting unclear about an encoded briefing. A plain language briefing does nothing to change or clarify the data. JKG |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
That's not the format plain English would use.
No, but it serves for illustration. Stack up five METARS and five translations, and then try to pick out the temp/dewpoint trend from each set. Are you willing to go back to 1200BPS modems and te[x]t only web pages? Yes. I did that with CBAV (RIP). I have animation, video, flash, popups, banners, blink tags, and all that "exciting" stuff turned off in my browser, force-disabled in some cases. Why not? You presume. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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. :~) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message ... In article , "Matt Barrow" wrote: The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have to learn how to read it, though. Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity, but then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~) There is noting unclear about an encoded briefing. A plain language briefing does nothing to change or clarify the data. BS. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
There's one other option if you don't want to read the raw wx
data...1-800-WX-BRIEF. Personally, I don't mind the undecoded data at all. Chris nooneimportant wrote: "Matt Barrow" wrote in message news "Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message ... In article , "Matt Barrow" wrote: I can't stand wading through an undecoded briefing where I have to pick through "Wind" and "Temperature" and all of that unnecessary verbal nonsense in order to get the information. Wind and Temp data is nonsense? The data is not, the excess verbiage of "Wind" and "Temperature" is. Sounds rather like the "If you can't run a computer from the command line, you shouldn't be on it!" crowd. That was a popular refrain from the Unix gang. I wonder how many of those are on the outs right now, with the IT industry going south? "Requirements? We don't do requirements; you'll get it the way we want to do it". Not really. The bottom line is that decoded METARs/TAFs provide a lot of information in a small package, and it can be read very quickly. Plain language briefings are cumbersome by comparison. I know of at least one briefing provider that has an option for undecoded, and that is CSC DUATs. The reality is that encoded weather may be old, but there's nothing wrong with it, and there are quite a few advantages to it. You do have to learn how to read it, though. Amazing that people want to save one or two lines that provide clarity, but then spend eons writing out long, rambling posts in here! :~) The truth is that We like our old fashioned metars and tafs... yes i do think they could be a little more clear, but do find it easier to quickly read over one or two lines, then to parse through a longer undecoded format. I can look at a TAF and spot trends very quickly, or look at multiple metars on a page and instantly pick out temps, winds etc without having to look for specific words. If you dont' like it, get your imformation from ADDS, DUATS or any number of other sources that give the option of "Plain Language" data. Now i do think plain language formats would be ideal for NOTAMS and such, but leave TAFs and METARs alone, especially considering all you have to do is call up your local FSS briefer, and he will decode and read the damn thing to you anyway if you want. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hobbs Soaring Forecast | Mike the Strike | Soaring | 0 | June 4th 05 06:51 PM |
Have you ever... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 229 | May 6th 05 08:26 PM |
RUC Mixed Boundary forecast | m pautz | Soaring | 2 | March 26th 05 03:48 AM |
Weather Question: forecasting clouds | Jonathan | Piloting | 11 | November 19th 04 09:34 PM |
A good 12 hour soaring forecast goes bad | Jonathan Gere | Soaring | 5 | July 11th 04 01:21 AM |