Why so many abbreviations in NOTAMs, etc.?

On 04/18/07 11:34, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Erik wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
documents? Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often
abbreviated, saving only a letter or two. I can't think of any
situation today in which bandwidth would be so severely limited that
saving a letter or two would make a difference, so I assume there is
some historical reason for the abbreviations. Were such messages
transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is someone
still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
channel) today?

I was told that the fewer characters transmitted, the more
cost-effective it became.

I was hoping that in this age of the internet, they would change this
before I had to take my written (no luck). I passed it anyway, but
I'm certain that part of the questions I got wrong were for the stupid
weather reading.

Well then study up because you will be asked at your check ride.



Are you sure about that?

During my check ride, the DE was concerned about my ability to get current
weather, which I did - from sources like DUATS, etc., where the text is
translated already. The DE didn't care whether I knew any of the abbreviations.

This was true both for my PP-ASEL and IR check rides.

I think the only people that think everyone must learn those abbreviations
are the pilots that had to learn them. It just isn't the case any more, but
some just refuse to let go of the 'old ways'.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Mark Hansen wrote:
On 04/18/07 11:34, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Erik wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
documents? Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often
abbreviated, saving only a letter or two. I can't think of any
situation today in which bandwidth would be so severely limited
that saving a letter or two would make a difference, so I assume
there is some historical reason for the abbreviations. Were such
messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other
extremely slow channel) today?

I was told that the fewer characters transmitted, the more
cost-effective it became.

I was hoping that in this age of the internet, they would change
this before I had to take my written (no luck). I passed it
anyway, but I'm certain that part of the questions I got wrong were
for the stupid weather reading.

Well then study up because you will be asked at your check ride.



Are you sure about that?

During my check ride, the DE was concerned about my ability to get
current weather, which I did - from sources like DUATS, etc., where
the text is translated already. The DE didn't care whether I knew any
of the abbreviations.

This was true both for my PP-ASEL and IR check rides.

I think the only people that think everyone must learn those
abbreviations are the pilots that had to learn them. It just isn't
the case any more, but some just refuse to let go of the 'old ways'.

You may well be right but the DE knows what you missed and can test you on
them.

On 04/18/07 11:59, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 04/18/07 11:34, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Erik wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar
documents? Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often
abbreviated, saving only a letter or two. I can't think of any
situation today in which bandwidth would be so severely limited
that saving a letter or two would make a difference, so I assume
there is some historical reason for the abbreviations. Were such
messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other
extremely slow channel) today?

I was told that the fewer characters transmitted, the more
cost-effective it became.

I was hoping that in this age of the internet, they would change
this before I had to take my written (no luck). I passed it
anyway, but I'm certain that part of the questions I got wrong were
for the stupid weather reading.

Well then study up because you will be asked at your check ride.



Are you sure about that?

During my check ride, the DE was concerned about my ability to get
current weather, which I did - from sources like DUATS, etc., where
the text is translated already. The DE didn't care whether I knew any
of the abbreviations.

This was true both for my PP-ASEL and IR check rides.

I think the only people that think everyone must learn those
abbreviations are the pilots that had to learn them. It just isn't
the case any more, but some just refuse to let go of the 'old ways'.

You may well be right but the DE knows what you missed and can test you on
them.

Of course. But you said that the applicant will be tested and I don't
think that's necessarily true - it's up to the DE...

Mark Hansen wrote:

You may well be right but the DE knows what you missed and can test
you on them.

Of course. But you said that the applicant will be tested and I don't
think that's necessarily true - it's up to the DE...


You're right I should have said "can," "might be" or maybe even "probably
will be." I know I was asked about everything I missed on my written.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

You're right I should have said "can," "might be" or maybe even "probably
will be." I know I was asked about everything I missed on my written.

The DE that did my PP required my CFI to add a logbook endorsement that
stated I had been given additional ground training on missed written
questions.

At the actual oral exam, the DE complimented my written score, and never
asked anything regarding the 2 missed questions.

On Apr 17, 1:20 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?
Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated, saving
only a letter or two. I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
difference, so I assume there is some historical reason for the abbreviations.
Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
channel) today?

Yes, Morse code before WW-II. Afterwards, Teletype starting at 75
words per minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFTN

http://users.bigpond.net.au/ctdavies...0Networ k.htm

http://www.sdxf.org/alfa/dxinfo/hfrtty.pdf

Kev

On Apr 19, 9:49 am, Kev wrote:

Why are so many things abbreviated in NOTAMs and other similar documents?

They're referred to as NOTAM Contractions:

https://www.notams.jcs.mil/downloads/contractions.pdf

Even words that aren't very long to begin with are often abbreviated, saving
only a letter or two.

How foolish it must seem.

I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
difference,

Not being in the loop limits scope to thought.

so I assume

I don't

there is some historical reason for the abbreviations.

There are still several systems still operating in the NAS with low
bandwidth, low storage capacity and running legacy software. The NAS
world doesn't begin/end the Internet, high bandwidth, high capacity
storage, that many take for granted.

There are many I've never seen or read about... or care to... (read:
The novelty of testing the 6V6 at the Radio Shack when I was a kid,
has long since worn off)

But I know of several systems running on machine decades old.

Last I was working with it (~'93), the AWPs were running old Tandem
(Fault Tolerant) hardware.

We did an interface to a system running on 486 boxes, using 19.2Kbaud
modems. Those systems are still running today (and it's usually their
end running Gate$ware that has the problem) - Obligatory Windows
Shot


Changes to operational systems are co-ordinated very carefully as
there's much more at stake than just a software/hardware upgrade.
Requirements trace well beyond the nearest neighbor sometimes you
don't just do it because you can or it because it's cheap or because
it's cool or because someone proved it could work in a simulated
environment.

NAS Modernization is coming. But it won't come all at once. Much to
big a web (bad word choice) was woven over the decades to even
contemplate doing it any other way.


Were such messages transmitted by Morse code or something in the past, or is
someone still transmitting them that way (or over some other extremely slow
channel) today?

Yes, Morse code before WW-II. Afterwards, Teletype starting at 75
words per minute.

Interestingly enough, here's some GNSS datapoints:

GPS - 50 bps
WAAS - 250 bps



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFTN

http://users.bigpond.net.au/ctdavies...ed%20Telecommu...

http://www.sdxf.org/alfa/dxinfo/hfrtty.pdf

Good 'ole AFTN. Widely in use today domestically and esp.
internationally (many over PSNs - X.25 running over 64Kbit links)

Several sponsors (DFS, Airservices Australia, NavCanada, DECEA) all
require AFTN support.

Any you know what? It still works just fine.

What's typically done is to take advantage of encapsulation, to take
advantage of better Transport layers, while still maintaining
compatibility with existing systems.

Kev

Regards,
Jon

Jon wrote:


NAS Modernization is coming. But it won't come all at once. Much to
big a web (bad word choice) was woven over the decades to even
contemplate doing it any other way.


It would probably be less expensive and easier in both the long and short
run to not update the current system but to create a completely new one and
let it run in parallel with the current system and then just let the last
one out turn out the light.

I can't think of any situation today in which bandwidth
would be so severely limited that saving a letter or two would make a
difference,

METARs by cell phone text message service would be quite unwieldy if
they were not abbreviated, and imagine if some yahoo decides that HTML
format is the "modern" way to go.

Feh

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jon writes:

Changes to operational systems are co-ordinated very carefully as
there's much more at stake than just a software/hardware upgrade.
Requirements trace well beyond the nearest neighbor sometimes you
don't just do it because you can or it because it's cheap or because
it's cool or because someone proved it could work in a simulated
environment.

Then why do people buy G1000s?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.