Ridiculous FAA written METAR examples...

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
Yeah, maybe as a meteorologist I shouldn't really care...but really?

METAR KSFO 031055Z VRB02KT 7SM MIFG SKC 15/14 A3012 RMK SLP993 SNINCR 1/10

Question inquires as to the remark SNINCR and what it means in this example.

Yet, we sure as hell will not see such conditions with a surface temp of 15 degrees and SKC...and in SFO?

They couldn't at least try someplace like Grand Rapids, Denver, someplace in Maine...you know, someplace that climatology would actually back up such a ridiculous claim. Or, the least they could have done was add some low clouds and a temperature near freezing, lol.
 

Houston

Well-Known Member
I do know that there is a study that was just completed regarding revising the tests and that was listed as an example of why a revision was needed.
 

moeflyin

152 BOSS
SNINCR NN/GG = Snow increased in past hour/on ground.

Ex: SNINCR 02/12 = 2" in past hour with 12" on ground. !!!!!

Some crazy weather!
 

KHanson

Well-Known Member
When stuff goes wrong, it's good times. I remember going for a night flight to KJVL one night and the tower just closed.. the first AWOS report sid it was OVC 002 and gusting over 60kts ... it was skies clear and you breathing was more wind than outside...
 

JustinS

Well-Known Member
LOL Whats even better is the TAFs. Whoever makes the TAFs get overzealous sometimes. Here's an example I copeed straight from aviationweather.gov it was so exagerated.

KGGG 032353Z 14008KT 10SM TS CLR 25/22 A2974 RMK AO2 TSB50RAB15E29 SLP066 P0002 60008 T02500217 10272 20250 56006

KGGG 032334Z 0400/0424 15008KT P6SM VCTS SCT040CB BKN080
TEMPO 0400/0404 VRB25G50KT 1SM +TSRAGR OVC010CB

I recall that particular time we didn't really get any major thunder storms and the winds never got close to that. :rolleyes:
 

Salkadi

Well-Known Member
Most TAFs I've seen since I've been dispatching are usually wrong in that they don't forecast the thunderstorm that's 50nm out and headed straight for the airport.
 

gotWXdagain

Highly Visible Member
These days, I don't even read the TAF as much anymore, beyond the regulatory requirement for IFR planning and such. Now that Adds puts out the TAF discussion, that's some interesting reading. Sometimes in the discussion the forecaster admits they have no idea what will happen on a particular day so they just basically guessed.
 

rframe

pǝʇɹǝʌuı
We've got a pretty cool aviation liaison at the local NWS office and he's done some FAA workshops. He explained how many years it takes a new forecaster to become remotely proficient with local weather patterns, I think he said it was something like 5-7 years, and even then he explained how many environmental factors really make weather forecasting black voodoo magic.... there's just no way to know and they try but it's just beyond the science they have available now, even with all their fancy computerized forecasting models and such... just the way it is. Nature doesn't always want to follow their expectations.
 

UAL747400

Well-Known Member
These days, I don't even read the TAF as much anymore, beyond the regulatory requirement for IFR planning and such. Now that Adds puts out the TAF discussion, that's some interesting reading. Sometimes in the discussion the forecaster admits they have no idea what will happen on a particular day so they just basically guessed.
You're still in Grand Funk right? I always found it entertaining looking at the AFB and GFK TAF together. The base seems to think the world is going to end any time there's a mouse fart of a cloud in the sky. Whoever does the GFK TAF doesn't seem to think anything is bad, ever, and under-forecasts what's going to happen. :D
 

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
Regretably, the Air Force doesn't emphasize a similar TAF forecasting philosophy as the NWS. For good reason most of the time, but yes - most Air Force (and military forecasters) do tend to over forecast. Mission is significantly different, which yields a more conservative forecast approach.

The training, weather wise - is excellent. However, the TAF forecast process philosophy is significantly flawed in my opinion.
 

cmill

Cold Ass Honky
You're still in Grand Funk right? I always found it entertaining looking at the AFB and GFK TAF together. The base seems to think the world is going to end any time there's a mouse fart of a cloud in the sky. Whoever does the GFK TAF doesn't seem to think anything is bad, ever, and under-forecasts what's going to happen. :D
I find that pretty normal for military bases for the former, and very normal for anywhere freight goes into for the latter. :) I think ive been one or two places where the observations where based only on pireps from freight dawgs, lol.
 

gotWXdagain

Highly Visible Member
That's why we have interpolation! But over the past year or so, the Base's TAF has been much more accurate, usually, than the NWS at GFK.
 

UAL747400

Well-Known Member
That's why we have interpolation! But over the past year or so, the Base's TAF has been much more accurate, usually, than the NWS at GFK.
I hear ya. I remember a few days where I thought "Well, the base thinks the world is going to end, GFK thinks it's going to be clear and a million, so I guess it'll just be middle level clouds today!" haha
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Regretably, the Air Force doesn't emphasize a similar TAF forecasting philosophy as the NWS. For good reason most of the time, but yes - most Air Force (and military forecasters) do tend to over forecast. Mission is significantly different, which yields a more conservative forecast approach.

The training, weather wise - is excellent. However, the TAF forecast process philosophy is significantly flawed in my opinion.
I do have to wonder sometimes if forecasting or observing can be driven by the Wing/CCs needs. For example, it's well known that in winds over 35 knots, ejection seat equipped aircraft won't fly training sorties, etc, due to having to parachute in those winds being an unnecessary risk post-ejection and when hitting the ground. Oddly enough, on high wind days, the TAF will say something to the effect of winds expected to be "25 to 34 knots", but it won't say the magic "35" or more, unless its more than obvious, as that could tend to get training flights cancelled. Any truth to that kind of influence, that you've seen? It just seems more than coincidence.

Almost reminds me of the ROKAF, and how an observation will never be worse than a forecast, regardless of what's actually going on outside at the time.
 

surreal1221

Well-Known Member
35kts may be warning criteria. If its in the TAF, the warning for high winds also needs to be out to maintain horizontal consistency and per the AFMAN. Makes sense really, forecasting warning criteria the warning has to be out.

It is a numbers game though Mike. Plus it's a forecast hedge. Forecast 20G30 and see how the winds progress, amend to add 25G35 and issue the warning with the hope you get your desired lead time (usually an hour) and your timing error isn't off too much either, otherwise you're taking even a larger hit on the stats side.

But yup - you have it right. :)
 
Top