A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Translate WX Forecast



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 31st 05, 02:22 AM
nooneimportant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"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  
Old July 31st 05, 03:04 AM
Jonathan Goodish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 31st 05, 03:05 AM
Jonathan Goodish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 31st 05, 06:18 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 31st 05, 09:37 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 31st 05, 09:38 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 31st 05, 01:53 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 31st 05, 02:35 PM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 1st 05, 05:19 PM
Chris G.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 2nd 05, 03:40 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.