Met Office Weather Forecast? Hmmmmmmm....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I fail to see how Military weather terminology - Blue, White, Magenta, Mauve, Gold-with-sparkly-bits or whatever else - has to do with a civilian pilot flying at a civil aerodrome in whatever weather conditions - i.e. me. I also fail to see the relevance of this comment - "Unless your aircraft is made of icing sugar that dissolves in light rain, would you really have been "caught out"?". I assume these throwaway remarks were a crude attempt at smart-arsery, in order to make me feel small and uninformed in order for you to claim some sort of high-ground? Well congratulations you've succeeded there.
Rain doesnt dissolve aircraft but it can dissolve a pilots confidence.
Bookworm is not known on these forums for anything other than well informed posts.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: devon
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Smith - please re-read the info bookworm gave you on the taf/metar sequence.
The tempo 1516 8000 –RA BKN012 was on a taf issued at 0544z, the 1019 was issued at 0906z, I assume the deterioration from 1500Z was dropped because they no longer expected it to happen at that time - which it didn’t! Yes there was light rain from 1650z, but I suggest you gen up on what needs to happen for a tempo or becmg to be added to a taf, 9999 –DZ FEW025 doesn’t meet any change that I’m aware of. Maybe they knew that the conditions under the rain band you could see on the radar weren't too bad to start with - give them some credit.
Also the 215 does give cloud top information, but only up to FL100. The airmet scripts do go higher, but I imagine space constraints limit how much information gets put in on higher topped cloud. The Sig Wx chart is just that, gives info on sig wx - ie. icing and turb levels, NOT cloud tops.
Regards
The tempo 1516 8000 –RA BKN012 was on a taf issued at 0544z, the 1019 was issued at 0906z, I assume the deterioration from 1500Z was dropped because they no longer expected it to happen at that time - which it didn’t! Yes there was light rain from 1650z, but I suggest you gen up on what needs to happen for a tempo or becmg to be added to a taf, 9999 –DZ FEW025 doesn’t meet any change that I’m aware of. Maybe they knew that the conditions under the rain band you could see on the radar weren't too bad to start with - give them some credit.
Also the 215 does give cloud top information, but only up to FL100. The airmet scripts do go higher, but I imagine space constraints limit how much information gets put in on higher topped cloud. The Sig Wx chart is just that, gives info on sig wx - ie. icing and turb levels, NOT cloud tops.
Regards
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the SigWx does give cloud tops....... It was the argument used to counter my request by the met office at the meeting. As they are the people that produce the charts please excuse me if I take their word over yours.
However when I pointed out the detail was not granular enough in detail for those at the lighter end of aviation without de-ice and pressurisation they agreed to listen to what I had to say and agree to look into the changes.
However when I pointed out the detail was not granular enough in detail for those at the lighter end of aviation without de-ice and pressurisation they agreed to listen to what I had to say and agree to look into the changes.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For about the 3rd time - the SigWx DOES give cloud tops, but they are so far off so as to be hard to rely on.
The information is OK if you have a 30k ft ceiling so the error doesn't matter.
The information is OK if you have a 30k ft ceiling so the error doesn't matter.
Actually the SigWx does give cloud tops...
So if you look at 1200 today, we have an area shown with icing and turb to 160 off the west coast of Norway, and an adjoining area with ISOL CB to 250 over Scandinavia. There may also be layer cloud with icing and turb to any level up to 250 in that area (and there probably is up to 160), but all that is included is the ISOL CB because it's the "greater hazard". So we can't tell the differnence between having to cruise in clear air and having to cruise in mod icing and turb. I've expressed my displeasure to the Met Office, but the decision was ICAO's.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's right - basically the SigWx is useless for establishing the vertical extent of any organised (stratus) cloud, when there is embedded TCU/CB stuff inside it.
This is OK for jet traffic, which is presumably all that interests the decisionmakers.
I would hope that Meteoblue is better because that would tend to show stratus at the expense of not showing cloud with lots of vertical development.
Fortunately, in the "metar" sense, there is www.meteox.com radar and also sferics
http://www.blitzortung.de/
though that site seems to have just died.
This is OK for jet traffic, which is presumably all that interests the decisionmakers.
I would hope that Meteoblue is better because that would tend to show stratus at the expense of not showing cloud with lots of vertical development.
Fortunately, in the "metar" sense, there is www.meteox.com radar and also sferics
http://www.blitzortung.de/
though that site seems to have just died.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://195.214.200.121/index.aspx?id=14
A good or even better alternative.
Shame if it has died though.
A good or even better alternative.
Shame if it has died though.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For about the 3rd time - the SigWx DOES give cloud tops, but they are so far off so as to be hard to rely on.
The information is OK if you have a 30k ft ceiling so the error doesn't matter.
The information is OK if you have a 30k ft ceiling so the error doesn't matter.
I would agree that the data is skewed towards the big paying customers of the service and not the flimsy end of GA. But the MO have started to listen and now that GA has a voice on the working group in the form of me I am fully prepared to take forward any reasonably placed requests in an effort to improve things for our end of aviation.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because every weather service is not provided for the personal attention of someone whizzing around Europe low airways in a TB20 does not make the data provided inaccurate.
The data is inaccurate.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No the data is not inaccurate. I have that proven to me by the met office forecasters. It is the pilot interpretation that is often incorrect and this largely because the data is skewed towards the heavy end of aviation and does not contain the granular detail that YOU want. Nonetheless the data provided for a 'model' is actually pretty good.
Your problem is that you expect everything to be skewed towards your end of aviation and the flying you do in a non de-iced single only capable of lower airways cruising. You are not equipped for sustained IMC flight and naturally prefer to be on top so you want to see data presented to meet YOUR needs specifically. However I suspect that you do not want to pay the cost of this personal service? Which by the way is available from the Met Office through a 1-1 premium service.
The met office are prepared to listen and understand that the remit is to provide aviation weather services that have to cover ALL of aviation. To this end they have opened the table to a GA representative and are listening.
Like you when I am grubbing around at lower airways levels I want to know where the tops are, if I can get on top and what the icing and convective likelihood is at a granular level applicable to GA. To this end I have asked for the cloud top information above FL100 to be put onto the 215/415 and the response after a clear explanation of our issues was very positive.
Here is a thought for you to take away IO. Rather than moaning and bitching about everything in GA, telling us how everyone is a con-man, how every aircraft is flying death trap and how everyone involved in aviation (apart from yourself) is a thick as pig**** anorak, why don't you come up with some constructive input and actually try and improve things from the inside?
It is easy to sit and slag everything off and to be frank your attitude is one of the reasons that GA is in decline. People only have to read your ranting and they think bugger it I am not getting into that and head off to a golf club.
If things in GA ever stand a chance of improvement it has to be done from the inside by US, the people who it effects directly and have the knowledge to understand how things work and how to change them.
The regulators have become increasingly open to approach by GA in recent times so we need to seize the moment.
You may not like my approach or my style or even my opinions, but the fact is that I am at least prepared to try and do something. If I fail at least I can say I tried, what about you?
Your problem is that you expect everything to be skewed towards your end of aviation and the flying you do in a non de-iced single only capable of lower airways cruising. You are not equipped for sustained IMC flight and naturally prefer to be on top so you want to see data presented to meet YOUR needs specifically. However I suspect that you do not want to pay the cost of this personal service? Which by the way is available from the Met Office through a 1-1 premium service.
The met office are prepared to listen and understand that the remit is to provide aviation weather services that have to cover ALL of aviation. To this end they have opened the table to a GA representative and are listening.
Like you when I am grubbing around at lower airways levels I want to know where the tops are, if I can get on top and what the icing and convective likelihood is at a granular level applicable to GA. To this end I have asked for the cloud top information above FL100 to be put onto the 215/415 and the response after a clear explanation of our issues was very positive.
Here is a thought for you to take away IO. Rather than moaning and bitching about everything in GA, telling us how everyone is a con-man, how every aircraft is flying death trap and how everyone involved in aviation (apart from yourself) is a thick as pig**** anorak, why don't you come up with some constructive input and actually try and improve things from the inside?
It is easy to sit and slag everything off and to be frank your attitude is one of the reasons that GA is in decline. People only have to read your ranting and they think bugger it I am not getting into that and head off to a golf club.
If things in GA ever stand a chance of improvement it has to be done from the inside by US, the people who it effects directly and have the knowledge to understand how things work and how to change them.
The regulators have become increasingly open to approach by GA in recent times so we need to seize the moment.
You may not like my approach or my style or even my opinions, but the fact is that I am at least prepared to try and do something. If I fail at least I can say I tried, what about you?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a thought for you to take away IO. Rather than moaning and bitching about everything in GA, telling us how everyone is a con-man, how every aircraft is flying death trap and how everyone involved in aviation (apart from yourself) is a thick as pig**** anorak, why don't you come up with some constructive input and actually try and improve things from the inside?
Clearly you put a great deal of time into supporting GA - and you are to be commended for doing so - by me any way.
However, there are many reasons why others may not be able to follow your lead.
Never the less by "moaning" many worth while criticisms and issues come to light which hopefully those in a position to do so can take forward.
In running the campaign on the IMC rating I was delighted to read every single criticism that was put to me on this forum - especially yours. (and that is not tongue in cheek).
Moreover, to be fair to IO he was one of the forumites who put a great deal of effort into running the campaign on the IMC rating and attended the meeting with EASA and the CAA in London on our behalf.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a thought for you to take away IO. Rather than moaning and bitching about everything in GA, telling us how everyone is a con-man, how every aircraft is flying death trap and how everyone involved in aviation (apart from yourself) is a thick as pig**** anorak, why don't you come up with some constructive input and actually try and improve things from the inside?
I do a vast amount to help other pilots - as you well know. I just don't boast about it on here.
Edit: to get back to the subject:
The debate on weather data provision really comes to what part of the pilot population is claimed to be supported.
I would say VFR-only pilots are supported well - for the totally simple reason that VFR is VFR, and you get TAFs and METARs and if when you are flying along you cannot maintain VMC then you are "supposed" to turn back, or do a precautionary landing in a field. Not great, but as I say, VFR is VFR ... These people are supported through ICAO obligations.
I would also say jet transport pilots are supported well - for the totally simple reason that they need to care about only a few things: temperatures, severe icing / freezing rain, severe surface crosswinds, winds aloft (fuel planning), where the jet stream is (fuel planning), etc. And solid fog (most have Cat3 autoland). Most weather we care about is of zero relevance to a jet. These people are very well supported, partly through ICAO obligations and partly because they have loads of $$$ and various 3rd party (commercial) weather data repackagers have sprung up who provide the briefings is the required format.
It leaves a group in the middle: IFR light aircraft pilots. One might have a FL250 ceiling and de-ice but this is not much use if you have a really lousy ride up and down through it, with passengers puking up all over the club seats in the back. This kind of data could be improved - assuming it is technically possible. But the incentive to do so is very small, and (as bookworm more or less says, in his SigWx example) the obligation under ICAO is nonexistent. I have a FL200 ceiling and could buy full TKS, or could buy a TB21 with full TKS and have a FL250 ceiling (most turbocharged IFR piston tourers with de-ice have a similar capability, whether pressurised or not). Yet, I would be writing this just the same.
The minimum equipment to comprehensively escape the last group and play in the middle group is something like a TBM700.
Last edited by IO540; 23rd Jun 2008 at 11:39.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, I have said my piece. I like IO a lot as a person, but sometimes I wonder why he bothers flying if everything is as bad as he makes out.
He has an amazing level of knowledge and energy which is generally misdirected and thus wasted.
The industry is it's own worst enemy and unless the people who are the most unhappy with the way things are like IO try to change it rather than complain about it nothing will improve.
The problem with the vitriolic moaning that goes on to 'highlight' issues as you point out is that it makes those who put their own time, effort and money into trying to improve things ask why they bother.
The discussion on this very thread is a classic example. IO's view that the forecast are wrong is based on the fact that they are wrong for HIS particular needs but as far as the accuracy of the forecast and the model used a number of posts have demonstrated that they are in fact correct but often the data is skewed to other areas of aviation. But rather than take a look at the bigger picture people will argue that the data is wrong and not their interpretation of it.
If he is dissatisfied with the data for his needs then he could place a balanced request stating what he needs, how he needs it and how it could be presented. This can be taken away and a cost benefit analysis carried out and a response made rather than just belligerently trying to convince us all the data is currently wrong. If anyone can prove it is wrong by given facts on specific dates then that can be taken back to the Met Office and they will QA the data and give a response. If it is wrong then they will change the model. This is all in the remit for the services they provide and are all governed by SLA's which they are keen to meet.
He has an amazing level of knowledge and energy which is generally misdirected and thus wasted.
The industry is it's own worst enemy and unless the people who are the most unhappy with the way things are like IO try to change it rather than complain about it nothing will improve.
The problem with the vitriolic moaning that goes on to 'highlight' issues as you point out is that it makes those who put their own time, effort and money into trying to improve things ask why they bother.
The discussion on this very thread is a classic example. IO's view that the forecast are wrong is based on the fact that they are wrong for HIS particular needs but as far as the accuracy of the forecast and the model used a number of posts have demonstrated that they are in fact correct but often the data is skewed to other areas of aviation. But rather than take a look at the bigger picture people will argue that the data is wrong and not their interpretation of it.
If he is dissatisfied with the data for his needs then he could place a balanced request stating what he needs, how he needs it and how it could be presented. This can be taken away and a cost benefit analysis carried out and a response made rather than just belligerently trying to convince us all the data is currently wrong. If anyone can prove it is wrong by given facts on specific dates then that can be taken back to the Met Office and they will QA the data and give a response. If it is wrong then they will change the model. This is all in the remit for the services they provide and are all governed by SLA's which they are keen to meet.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The industry is it's own worst enemy and unless the people who are the most unhappy with the way things are like IO try to change it rather than complain about it nothing will improve.
I think we might just differ on whether or not you should "complain" if you are not prepared to do anything about it.
You may well know IO a lot better than I, and he may well not publicise the contribution he makes to GA as widely as you might.
Personally, I quite admire your b$$"S to keep on putting yourself up in the way you do but not every one goes about things the same way.
C’est la Vie or perhaps vive la différence if we werent all old women!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It leaves a group in the middle: IFR light aircraft pilots.
So rather than trying to convince it is wrong when it clearly is not, tell me exactly what it is you want and then maybe we can do something about it.
There is no requirement to service IFR light aircraft pilots as the demand is infinitesimally small. Notwithstanding this, we have an opportunity to put our argument forward and have it acted upon as long as we do so in a clear an level manner and prove that we deserve the place at the table.
Fuiji, I am starting to worry about this regular agreement we are reaching........
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuiji, I am starting to worry about this regular agreement we are reaching........
Dont worry I dont suppose it will last.
- I bet you will mention AOPA in a minute
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Fuiji, I am starting to worry about this regular agreement we are reaching........
Hmmm, now there is a thought.
Dont worry I dont suppose it will last. - I bet you will mention AOPA in a minute
Fuiji, I am starting to worry about this regular agreement we are reaching........
Hmmm, now there is a thought.
Dont worry I dont suppose it will last. - I bet you will mention AOPA in a minute
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So rather than trying to convince it is wrong when it clearly is not, tell me exactly what it is you want and then maybe we can do something about it.
There is no requirement to service IFR light aircraft pilots as the demand is infinitesimally small. Notwithstanding this, we have an opportunity to put our argument forward and have it acted upon as long as we do so in a clear an level manner and prove that we deserve the place at the table.
There is no requirement to service IFR light aircraft pilots as the demand is infinitesimally small. Notwithstanding this, we have an opportunity to put our argument forward and have it acted upon as long as we do so in a clear an level manner and prove that we deserve the place at the table.
If you can get the UKMO to release their 3D model data (forecast tephigrams) that would be a start.