METAR code

Chris Rowland wrote in
:

Jay Honeck wrote:

I can't really get it.

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and
modernized, that they are still transmitting weather information
encoded for teletype machines?

Sure, we all learn(ed) to parse it (with notable exceptions like this
one), but it's not like they lack bandwidth anymore.

Not everyone receiving weather data has a fast data connection. And
while one METAR may be small, getting the full set of METARs from
every station, worldwide, can get quite large, even with condensed
format. Storing that data for a while could be even more difficult
with an expanded format, that still contained the same basic data.
Having a (mostly) standardized format is useful for reading too, I can
quickly parse many METARs for a flight very quickly, much faster than
when the data is in plain English (or any language).



I can do it faster in Chinese.

Bertie

I've got to side with Jay on this one. Given modern technology there is no reason for anything other than plain english. While Chris may be able to parse this, there are a lot of pilots that can't. This is evident by the amount of effort needed to translate this. Having to dig up the books to figure out the less used phrases is really safety of flight thing. I don't think there is any good reason for anything less than palin english.

John

Originally Posted by Chris Rowland

Jay Honeck wrote:

I can't really get it.

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and modernized,
that they are still transmitting weather information encoded for teletype
machines?

Sure, we all learn(ed) to parse it (with notable exceptions like this one),
but it's not like they lack bandwidth anymore.

Not everyone receiving weather data has a fast data connection. And while one
METAR may be small, getting the full set of METARs from every station,
worldwide, can get quite large, even with condensed format. Storing that data
for a while could be even more difficult with an expanded format, that still
contained the same basic data. Having a (mostly) standardized format is useful
for reading too, I can quickly parse many METARs for a flight very quickly, much
faster than when the data is in plain English (or any language).

I thought English is the international standard language for aviation. All international control towers at major airports speak english, don't they? I have heard stories about how sometimes it was't so good, but english was the language that was spoken.

Originally Posted by

Jay Honeck wrote:
I can't really get it.

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and modernized,
that they are still transmitting weather information encoded for teletype
machines?

Not when you concider that by treaty we have to be compatible with the
third world and non English speaking pilots.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Eqnkj.42544$Ux2.7685@attbi_s22:

I can't really get it.

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and
modernized, that they are still transmitting weather information
encoded for teletype machines?

Sure, we all learn(ed) to parse it (with notable exceptions like this
one), but it's not like they lack bandwidth anymore.

Most pilots I know can read the METARs and TAFs quicker when they are NOT
decoded into plain english.

"Jackal24" wrote in message
...

Most pilots I know can read the METARs and TAFs quicker when they are NOT
decoded into plain english.

I keep a little reference booklet in my flight bag. I just hate having to
remember the crap for written exams.

-c

Jackal24 schrieb:
"Jay Honeck" wrote

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and
modernized, that they are still transmitting weather information
encoded for teletype machines?

Most pilots I know can read the METARs and TAFs quicker when they are NOT
decoded into plain english.

Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the
airports which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In
abreviated form I can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute
with a glance, like in a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I
often don't even really read them, it's more a pattern recognition.
Maybe it's just the first sign of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to wade
through all that verbose jabber of ten "cler text METARs", I probably
would have forgotten the first when I arrive at the third.

Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take
one unit of something and then add another unit of that same something,
then as a result of such behaviour you will have two units of that
something"?

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Jackal24 schrieb:
"Jay Honeck" wrote

Isn't it odd that in 2008, as Flight Service is consolidated and
modernized, that they are still transmitting weather information
encoded for teletype machines?

Most pilots I know can read the METARs and TAFs quicker when they are NOT
decoded into plain english.

Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the airports
which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In abreviated form I
can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute with a glance, like in
a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I often don't even really
read them, it's more a pattern recognition. Maybe it's just the first sign
of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to wade through all that verbose jabber
of ten "cler text METARs", I probably would have forgotten the first when
I arrive at the third.

Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take one
unit of something and then add another unit of that same something, then
as a result of such behaviour you will have two units of that something"?

spot on.

Stefan wrote:
Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the
airports which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In
abreviated form I can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute
with a glance, like in a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I
often don't even really read them, it's more a pattern recognition.
Maybe it's just the first sign of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to
wade through all that verbose jabber of ten "cler text METARs", I
probably would have forgotten the first when I arrive at the third.

How long did it take you to learn to use METARs this way? And are you
saying this is why METAR coding was designed the way it was?

Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take
one unit of something and then add another unit of that same
something, then as a result of such behaviour you will have two units
of that something"?

First, the english language translation of 1+1=2 is "One plus one equal
two" - not what your wrote, which was your own semantic version.

Second, METAR code isn't taught in elementary school but math notation is.

The translation of METAR code to english is accomplished roughly one-for-
one similar to the mechanism I used than the odd translation you used.

Lastly, other than inertia, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to
continue to use METAR code. What problem does it solve that use of english
cannot solve?

Jim Logajan wrote:
Stefan wrote:
Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the
airports which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In
abreviated form I can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute
with a glance, like in a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I
often don't even really read them, it's more a pattern recognition.
Maybe it's just the first sign of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to
wade through all that verbose jabber of ten "cler text METARs", I
probably would have forgotten the first when I arrive at the third.

How long did it take you to learn to use METARs this way? And are you
saying this is why METAR coding was designed the way it was?

Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take
one unit of something and then add another unit of that same
something, then as a result of such behaviour you will have two units
of that something"?

First, the english language translation of 1+1=2 is "One plus one equal
two" - not what your wrote, which was your own semantic version.

Second, METAR code isn't taught in elementary school but math notation is.

The translation of METAR code to english is accomplished roughly one-for-
one similar to the mechanism I used than the odd translation you used.

Lastly, other than inertia, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to
continue to use METAR code. What problem does it solve that use of english
cannot solve?

Being understandable to those who's native language isn't English.

And conversely, if you fly into a country where the native language
isn't English, you will be able to understand METAR code.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Logajan schrieb:

How long did it take you to learn to use METARs this way?

I don't know, but not too long. After using METARs for a year or so I
just happened to realise that I could use them in this way.

And are you
saying this is why METAR coding was designed the way it was?

No. But it's a very welcome side effect.

First, the english language translation of 1+1=2 is "One plus one equal
two" - not what your wrote, which was your own semantic version.

You don't realize that "One plus one equal two" is already highly coded
mathematical language and not plain "natural" English at all. If you
break it down to really natural language, you will get the sentence I
wrote or something similiar.

Second, METAR code isn't taught in elementary school but math notation is.

So you say that METARs should be taught in elementary school? Or are you
rather saying that a pilot should not learn anything beyond elementary
school? (Hint: Operating an airplane isn't taught in elementary school,
either.)

Lastly, other than inertia, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to
continue to use METAR code.

There doesn't seem to be any valid reason to learn to read and write,
either, when you can listen to the radio rather than read a newspaper
and buy most books on audio CD.

What problem does it solve that use of english cannot solve?

I answered this already.