|
|
Post by Little Miss Sunshine on Aug 10, 2016 3:43:21 GMT -5
It's the stupidity and disrespect that gets us Donny - a "work around" the executive order doesn't assuage the anger following such insult. T'storms we handle very well, contribute to the safety of the NAS, and help us feel good about what we are doing. If the FAA succeeds in destroying our job satisfaction, many of us will quit taking our experience with us leaving the rookies who don't have much (if any) manual obs experience - which in turn will justify FAA action to shutter the rest of us. This battle just won't go away until the Feds realize the folly of automation controlling wx reporting. We will be editing much more than just the remarks with ALDARS - much easier to turn it off and report correctly to start with - for timeliness and without COR obs, since ASOS likes to throw things at us at the last second. It is a tool that can be used to your benefit just like radar. It does not have to be reported within your personal observation with your initials attached. As stated before, the information is collected and used for a purpose. Also, there are other aspects of the job to take pride in. This isn't worth fighting about. The order has been issued and likely will not be repealed.Is there an actual Air Traffic Order on this subject to override JO 7900.5C? |
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Aug 10, 2016 5:35:23 GMT -5
much of this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. some people come in here just to try and create confusion. they should be ignored. any and all requirements will come directly from your contractor.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Aug 10, 2016 7:53:25 GMT -5
Agreed. We seem to have some people with ulterior motives on this site to say the least and they know who they are. Unfortunately for them, some of us know who they are too!
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Aug 10, 2016 9:32:47 GMT -5
would be good if the admin would boot these people off the site. it's obvious they are anti-CWO.
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Aug 10, 2016 17:15:37 GMT -5
My contractor sent out a memo requesting we confirm that we were in compliance with the FAA instruction to leave ALDARS on.
And yes folks, the FAA watches this forum closely to try to figure out how to out fox us - and to watch their own behinds, as their actions could cost some of them their jobs. Too much bureau'ratic capital invested in ASLOP.
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Aug 10, 2016 17:16:18 GMT -5
My contractor sent out a memo requesting we confirm that we were in compliance with the FAA instruction to leave ALDARS on.
And yes folks, the FAA watches this forum closely to try to figure out how to out fox us - and to watch their own behinds, as their actions could cost some of them their jobs. Too much bureau'ratic capital invested in ASLOP.
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Aug 10, 2016 17:16:30 GMT -5
My contractor sent out a memo requesting we confirm that we were in compliance with the FAA instruction to leave ALDARS on. And yes folks, the FAA watches this forum closely to try to figure out how to out fox us - and to watch their own behinds, as their actions could cost some of them their jobs. Too much bureau'ratic capital invested in ASLOP. And when president Trump appoints me director of the FAA...  |
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Aug 11, 2016 21:31:04 GMT -5
this ALDARS ended TS in remarks at 0143...however...ALDARS locates a TS 5-10 miles from ap (VCTS) at 0149 and 0153
KAMA 120153Z 01010KT 10SM VCTS SCT080 OVC110 22/19 A3001 RMK AO2 WSHFT 0117 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAE37 TSE43 SLP112 P0012 T02170189
KAMA 120149Z 36011KT 10SM VCTS FEW080 SCT090 BKN110 22/19 A3001 RMK AO2 WSHFT 0117 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAE37 TSE43 P0012
similar case...
KSLN 120229Z 00000KT 10SM VCTS -RA FEW070 FEW120 26/23 A2985 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAE08B26 TSE23 P0001 T02560233
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Aug 11, 2016 22:29:31 GMT -5
Yet in both cases LTG DSNT (10+ miles) with a VCTS (5-10 miles)  Go figure. Not a very precise program and a bit downright confusing. skobie |
|
sunny9
Junior Member
Posts: 53 
|
Post by sunny9 on Aug 12, 2016 7:13:35 GMT -5
This is one of those glitches in the new 3.10 software. If the observer had earlier manually put TS in Present Weather and manually ended the TS when it was over, the next time ASOS automatically begins VCTS (it can be days later), a false TSE RMK appears. The problem does not happen if ASOS automatically did the thunderstorm with TS, or if the observer when ending the thunderstorm first went from TS to VCTS and then ended the VCTS.
|
|
sunny9
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by sunny9 on Aug 12, 2016 8:06:17 GMT -5
Oops - I should have looked at this more closely.
AMA 120153Z 01010KT 10SM VCTS SCT080 OVC110 22/19 A3001 RMK AO2 WSHFT 0117 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAE37 TSE43 SLP112 P0012 T02170189
KAMA 120149Z 36011KT 10SM VCTS FEW080 SCT090 BKN110 22/19 A3001 RMK AO2 WSHFT 0117 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAE37 TSE43 P0012
KAMA 120137Z 02011KT 10SM TS FEW055 BKN090 OVC110 21/19 A3000 RMK AO2 WSHFT 0117 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAE37 P0012 T02110189
KAMA 120120Z 33014G19KT 10SM -TSRA FEW055 BKN075 OVC100 22/19 A3001 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT W-NE P0011 T02170189
The new 3.10 software considers a thunderstorm to be a thunderstorm only when it is within 5 miles. That is why it put the TSE43 RMK when TS changed to VCTS.
Same here:
KSLN 120229Z 00000KT 10SM VCTS -RA FEW070 FEW120 26/23 A2985 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAE08B26 TSE23 P0001 T02560233
KSLN 120153Z VRB03KT 10SM -TSRA FEW009 SCT033 BKN047 25/23 A2985 RMK AO2 PK WND 34029/0107 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAB19 TSB02 SLP092 P0029 T02500233
KSLN 120135Z 33010KT 3SM +TSRA BR SCT031 BKN043 OVC085 24/23 A2984 RMK AO2 PK WND 34029/0107 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAB19 TSB02 P0029 T02440233
KSLN 120123Z 32022G27KT 1 3/4SM +TSRA BR FEW013 BKN046 OVC085 25/23 A2984 RMK AO2 PK WND 34029/0107 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAB19 TSB02 P0021 T02500233
KSLN 120102Z 00000KT 10SM TS BKN100 BKN110 34/22 A2979 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT ALQDS TSB02 PRESRR T03390222
KSLN 120053Z 15003KT 10SM SCT100 33/22 A2978 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT ALQDS SLP066 T03330222
But what I wrote in my last post about the false TSE RMKs is also true. If days ago the observer had manually put TS in present weather and manually removed it, the next time ASOS automatically begins a VCTS, a false TSE RMK will show up.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Aug 12, 2016 9:23:51 GMT -5
Way too much confusion and worry. This is just one of the reasons why a professionally trained weather observer (not LAWRS for sure) should never use VCTS (neither should LAWRS sites, but they would understand very little of this conversation anyway and wouldn't have the time to bother besides). There is never a need for it if someone is manning ASOS. Fine at completely automated stations where they would have nothing otherwise.
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on Aug 12, 2016 9:28:27 GMT -5
As always,
well said Skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by tornado on Aug 12, 2016 10:22:31 GMT -5
This is just one of the reasons why a professionally trained weather observer (not LAWRS for sure) should never use VCTS
Is a VCTS any less of a thunderstorm, than a TS? A VCTS is just a TS whose lightning didn't have the courtesy to
strike close enough to a weather station. 
Was this VCTS any less dangerous, because its associated lightning was outside 5 miles?
SPECI KCPR 112304Z 22011G44KT 2SM R03/5500VP6000FT VCTS +RA
FEW023 SCT080 BKN095 14/08 A3019 RMK AO2 PK WND
23044/2259 WSHFT 2250 LTG DSNT ALQDS P0009 T01440083
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Aug 12, 2016 10:53:05 GMT -5
No beginning or end times to a VCTS, which means a thunderstorm never occurred at the station officially, which will screw up climate records for years to come, not to mention that I don't think aviation people (outside of weather observers) would take the situation as seriously, so I stick to my guns and say there should be no VCTS reported at augmented/backed up sites. Also, no need for it as it will be taken care of in remarks besides (which is another reason why we're here). So to answer your question tornado, I think overall it shows up as less of a thunderstorm on paper, at the very least and just adds to confusion, particularly when there's no need for it. It tells me that someone at an augmented site probably didn't know what they were doing or are just letting ASOS run completely automated, even though their initials may be on the ob.
skobie
|
|
Go figure. Not a very precise program and a bit downright confusing.
