ARFOR & SIGMET interpretation
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there are two separate issues here. One is meeting the requirements which your licence indicates you are capable of. The second is understanding fully, the information you have aquired by meeting the "requirements".
A subtle disclaimer on the BOM aviation page advises you that to meet regulatory requirements you MUST use the MET information from Airservices.
Now my view is that the Airservices output is compliant, but very difficult to interpret accurately without consulting various other documents including codes maps and charts. This is particularly the case with SIGMETs where the areas are usually described by co-ordinates.
A recent example was the SIGMETs relationg to the Indoneasian volcanic ash cloud.
Airservices advice ran to pages of numbers which no one could keep in their head to interpret. BOM had a graphic which could easily be interpeted as "does it affect me?" Now I believe I met the requirements, as I had read the SIGMET but I understood it by using the BOM website.
This prompted me to email BOM thanking them for the graphic and asking if graphics could be produced for SIGMETs.
Their response follows:-
"Thank you for your email and request. We currently have a project underway which I believe will meet your needs. The graphic will display the horizontal extent of all current SIGMETs. For each SIGMET, the graphic will also display the type, severity, vertical extents, movement and validity times.
We plan to have this feature operational and available on our webpage Q4 of this calendar year."
A subtle disclaimer on the BOM aviation page advises you that to meet regulatory requirements you MUST use the MET information from Airservices.
Now my view is that the Airservices output is compliant, but very difficult to interpret accurately without consulting various other documents including codes maps and charts. This is particularly the case with SIGMETs where the areas are usually described by co-ordinates.
A recent example was the SIGMETs relationg to the Indoneasian volcanic ash cloud.
Airservices advice ran to pages of numbers which no one could keep in their head to interpret. BOM had a graphic which could easily be interpeted as "does it affect me?" Now I believe I met the requirements, as I had read the SIGMET but I understood it by using the BOM website.
This prompted me to email BOM thanking them for the graphic and asking if graphics could be produced for SIGMETs.
Their response follows:-
"Thank you for your email and request. We currently have a project underway which I believe will meet your needs. The graphic will display the horizontal extent of all current SIGMETs. For each SIGMET, the graphic will also display the type, severity, vertical extents, movement and validity times.
We plan to have this feature operational and available on our webpage Q4 of this calendar year."
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had to decipher some obscure TAF's from abroad and Australia does not have it that bad. The decode is presented nicely in AIP. The difference is that the pro's don't need to remember it all because they know where to look for the answers! Not the lazy option of having it all presented to you and only reading AIP once... for your exam...criticism on this post optional.
I've been flying all my working life and I am all for making it easier, why not? There is always some 'Biro-Muncher' with some excuse to resist change, waffling on about ICAO reg something or other. We should lead, not follow. The weather is not our only pre-flight consideration and everthing is time critical these days. Its dangerous to misunderstand abbreviations. How about REFZRA, DRSN etc. Sure it's no big deal looking it up, but again it soaks up time. Why not just say,"It's bloody snowing". How hard is that?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there are two separate issues here. One is meeting the requirements which your licence indicates you are capable of. The second is understanding fully, the information you have aquired by meeting the "requirements".
A subtle disclaimer on the BOM aviation page advises you that to meet regulatory requirements you MUST use the MET information from Airservices.
Now my view is that the Airservices output is compliant, but very difficult to interpret accurately without consulting various other documents including codes maps and charts. This is particularly the case with SIGMETs where the areas are usually described by co-ordinates.
A recent example was the SIGMETs relationg to the Indoneasian volcanic ash cloud.
Airservices advice ran to pages of numbers which no one could keep in their head to interpret. BOM had a graphic which could easily be interpeted as "does it affect me?" Now I believe I met the requirements, as I had read the SIGMET but I understood it by using the BOM website.
This prompted me to email BOM thanking them for the graphic and asking if graphics could be produced for SIGMETs.
Their response follows:-
"Thank you for your email and request. We currently have a project underway which I believe will meet your needs. The graphic will display the horizontal extent of all current SIGMETs. For each SIGMET, the graphic will also display the type, severity, vertical extents, movement and validity times.
We plan to have this feature operational and available on our webpage Q4 of this calendar year."
A subtle disclaimer on the BOM aviation page advises you that to meet regulatory requirements you MUST use the MET information from Airservices.
Now my view is that the Airservices output is compliant, but very difficult to interpret accurately without consulting various other documents including codes maps and charts. This is particularly the case with SIGMETs where the areas are usually described by co-ordinates.
A recent example was the SIGMETs relationg to the Indoneasian volcanic ash cloud.
Airservices advice ran to pages of numbers which no one could keep in their head to interpret. BOM had a graphic which could easily be interpeted as "does it affect me?" Now I believe I met the requirements, as I had read the SIGMET but I understood it by using the BOM website.
This prompted me to email BOM thanking them for the graphic and asking if graphics could be produced for SIGMETs.
Their response follows:-
"Thank you for your email and request. We currently have a project underway which I believe will meet your needs. The graphic will display the horizontal extent of all current SIGMETs. For each SIGMET, the graphic will also display the type, severity, vertical extents, movement and validity times.
We plan to have this feature operational and available on our webpage Q4 of this calendar year."
