weather shorthand

On Jul 2, 8:18 am, B A R R Y wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:

To see the benefit of abbreviated format, go to DUATS and get a
briefing for 500 mile trip. Print them on paper using their plain
english translator and the standard format. The plain English format
will take dozens of pages and it will be like reading a book. The
standard format will be a lot shorter and easier to interpret. Now try
reading while you are flying in a bouncing cockpit with dim lighting
and you can see how easy the short hand format is.

I don't see a benefit of carrying hours-old printouts with me, compared
to fresh information obtained via HIWAS, Flight Watch, automated ground
stations, or onboard weather electronics.

To me, the distant weather is simply a sketch of what I might find along
the way. Any important information I want to have later can be noted in
the appropriate area on my knee pad flight plan form. Otherwise, isn't
it better to deal with what is, vs. what DUATS said it might be?

Good point. But how about on your Garmin satlink weather? I can pull
up METAR and TAF data in a pinch. Imagine how it would be if it were
in plain language.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 02:21:29 -0000, Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

Good point. But how about on your Garmin satlink weather? I can pull
up METAR and TAF data in a pinch. Imagine how it would be if it were
in plain language.

Long. G

ICAO rules the aviation world. The USA no longer carries a big stick.

Bob Gardner


"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 29, 12:02 pm, "pgbnh" wrote:
There was a time (probably right before I passed my Instrumenr written)
when
I was pretty good at being able to read the shorthand used for weather
conditions, FA's, and the like. There was also a time when using
shorthand
made sense - days of slow teletypes, limited memory, etc.

But does it still make sense? Would it not make more sense, and possibly
save some lives, if ALL weather was made available in plain English. So I
would not have to guess at the abbreviations, and hope that I had gotten
it
right?

There is a certain amount of 'IFR-macho' to being able to interpret this
stuff, but is it time for a change?

To see the benefit of abbreviated format, go to DUATS and get a
briefing for 500 mile trip. Print them on paper using their plain
english translator and the standard format. The plain English format
will take dozens of pages and it will be like reading a book. The
standard format will be a lot shorter and easier to interpret. Now try
reading while you are flying in a bouncing cockpit with dim lighting
and you can see how easy the short hand format is.

It is true that the cryptic form makes it difficult to learn the
codes. Perhaps it might be better if they dropped the French word
origins and used English abbreviations instead.