Why do have to read weather like this?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Nathan Young wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:37:54 -0500, wrote:

KHSV 221553Z 19009KT 6SM BR FEW020 BKN035 OVC100 19/18 A2986 RMK
AO2 TSE00RAE11 SLP104 TS MOV NE P0000 T01890178=

I know, and I can read it. And someone is going to say that they
prefer it that way.

I prefer it this way. Once you are used to it, it is shorthand, and
is quicker to read than the longhand version, which would read
something like this...

Not only that, the basic format is international. Everything before RMK is
pretty standard worldwide, so I (a Canadian) don't have to know exact
details of how the US does their weather reports. I can just run through
the standard code.

The US NOAA/FAA ADDS wx website allows you to check *any* airport or wx
reporting site w/ a standard code. The reports aren't all "translated"
into the US standard encoding system, but the fundamentals should be
readable by anyone with a private pilots license.

Besides, I really can read the coded versions far faster than the "plain
language" versions, and that's true of many, many pilots. Get a half-dozen
airports onto one screen (or sheet of paper) and compare them all at a
glance, more or less.



Huntsville International Airport, April 22, 1553Z weather. Winds
190@09kts, 6 statute miles visibility in mist. Few clouds at 2000
feet, broken cloulds at 3500 feet, overcast clouds at 10,000 feet.
Temperature 19 deg C, dewpoint 18 deg C, Altimeter 29.86...

Or even longer versions. Check how NavCanada does "plain language" wx
reports for seriously verbose
translations.(www.flightplanning.navcanada.ca) The code versions are three
lines; the "plain" ones are half a screenful...

The encoded METAR/TAFs might have started as a reaction to low-bandwidth
telegraph/teletype machines, but they're still a remarkably effecient way
of delivering wx data to trained people!

Brian
PP-ASEL/Night