|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on Jan 30, 2020 13:36:12 GMT -5
January 29, 2020
To all,
Send this to all of your sites.
It was reported that some weather observers are backing up or editing Additive Data produced by the ASOS/AWOS. The FAA JO 7900.5E added “Automated Only” to the items below to indicate that these Remarks are Automated Only and they are not backed up if they are missing and they should never be edited. We will attempt to make the policy clearer in the next revision. Some sites are also reporting a 931RRR Group. There is no such thing as the 931RRR Group. The NWS did away with it years ago. Do not report a 931 Group anymore.
13.46. Hourly Precipitation Amount (Prrrr) (Automated Only).
13.47. 1, 3, and 6 Hourly Ice Accretion Amounts (I1nnn, I3nnn, I6nnn) (Automated Only).
a. Hourly Ice Accretion Amount (I1nnn) (Automated Only).
b. 3-Hourly Ice Accretion Amount (I3nnn) (Automated Only).
c. 6-Hourly Ice Accretion Amount (I6nnn) (Automated Only).
13.48. 3- and 6- Hour Precipitation Amount (6RRRR) (Automated Only).
13.49. 24-Hour Precipitation Amount (7R24 R24 R24 R24) (Automated Only).
13.52. Hourly Temperature and Dew Point (TsnT’T’T’snT’dT’dT’d) (Automated Only).
13.53. 6-Hourly Maximum Temperature (1snTxTxTx) (Automated Only).
13.54. 6-Hourly Minimum Temperature (2snTnTnTn) (Automated Only).
13.55. 24-Hour Maximum and Minimum Temperature (4s T T TxsnTnTnTn) (Automated Only).
13.56. 3-Hourly Pressure Tendency (5appp) (Automated Only).
Designated Snow sites report using the guidance in Appendix F of the 7900.5E
CWO weather observers at sites that meet the requirements in Paragraph F.2 are required to disseminate and observe only the following weather elements:
a. Snow Depth on Ground (Remarks: 4/sss): Reference Paragraph 13.50
b. Water Equivalent of Snow on Ground (Remarks: 933RRR): Reference Paragraph 13.51
c. 6-Hour Snowfall (Column 34): Reference Paragraph 14.10.x
d. Snow Depth (Column 35): Reference Paragraph 14.10.y
Note: We do not have any manual weather reporting stations. If the ASOS/AWOS fails and a manual observation is issued, that does not make you a manual station.
Thanks,
Air Traffic Services (AJT-22)
FCT and Aviation Weather Team
|
|
|
|
Post by artension on Jan 30, 2020 18:16:06 GMT -5
Got the same email - interested to see how folks on this board interpret it. Sounds like we let the observation go out with "M"'s (or the equivalent) for whatever data on the list above is missing and don't augment it into the ASOS. What if we are transmitting the obs thru AISR due to an ASOS or comms outage? Do we then compute the items manually and transmit them on AISR?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowspinner on Jan 30, 2020 20:42:34 GMT -5
It says on the last sentence that doing a manual observation doesn't make you a manual station...if that is the case all of these would be excluded from a manual observation.
What about false precipitation and false I groups?
|
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Jan 30, 2020 23:43:39 GMT -5
only in the "ice accretion amounts" section...13.47. does it state "no backup is required" we have never backed up what is in the above FAA memo. and 13.47. still incorrectly states "the ice accretion remark was not available at the time of this writing" it obviously has been available and has been transmitted for years. FAA still has not corrected a number of other mistakes...some that were pointed out to them many years ago. instead of nit-picking CWO's, they need to clean up the incompetent slop put out by most LAWRS
|
|
|
|
Post by snowwx on Jan 31, 2020 4:01:38 GMT -5
Really Kenny? Why is it we have a 8"rain/snow gauge installed by the NWS...to back up precipitation...we back up the 6 group and 7 group...i don't know how many times the NWS has called us to straighten out precipitation amounts for the day...over the last 20 years...Sure we are a snow station, but thats besides the point .....one time, when the temperature and precip additive groups where way off, it transmitted it, the NWS and the Media jumped all over us because it was so bogus, we had to correct it and reset...So Ken and barbie...get in the real world ...I know the faa and the NWS have been having their usual feuds over the last 30 years...but you people are so clueless on weather/climate/meteorology...you have no business in this field...You were trained to talk to pilots and separate airplanes...you arent meteorologists and observers...we all know that you want all CWO observations to look like LAWRS stations so you can say they are equal in quality and substance hence then close all the CWOs...we know your end game and Congress will still say NO...so get over it.......Clean the Swamp!
|
|
|
|
Post by snowball on Jan 31, 2020 8:27:22 GMT -5
The problem we ran across when we edited the P and 6 groups was that at the end of the climate day ASOS would still add up ITS totals and report a daily precip total that does not match the total in the 6 groups, so we would still get calls from the weather service asking how this is possible. So we stopped editing the precip groups and now we just call the NWS if there are any edits needed for the 6 group.
|
|
auto
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by auto on Jan 31, 2020 8:34:54 GMT -5
The problem we ran across when we edited the P and 6 groups was that at the end of the climate day ASOS would still add up ITS totals and report a daily precip total that does not match the total in the 6 groups, so we would still get calls from the weather service asking how this is possible. So we stopped editing the precip groups and now we just call the NWS if there are any edits needed for the 6 group. Why not just edit the asos daily summary with the updated data at midnight? |
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Jan 31, 2020 10:57:24 GMT -5
I no longer see a backup requirement in 7900 for pcpn or the list of backup gauges by priority. so...ken and/or calamity (aka sling-joe)...contact the NWS and have them come pick up their 8" rain gauge. technically the 931nnn group ( depth of new snowfall) was never "meant" to be transmitted on a metar...but it was the most convient way to get the data to the NWS. now...did the NWS actually discontinue this group...or did they tell the FAA to not xmit on a metar? I would think this could be important info...especially useful for hydrology. the main problem is the FAA never should have been given the ASOS/metar program. they are trained to talk to pilots and sell pilot licences. their knowledge of the program would fit on my little finger. and the NWS is no longer involved in the observing program...except for ASOS maint. I don't believe the NWS even has anymore certified surface observers.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowball on Jan 31, 2020 14:29:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Jan 31, 2020 14:39:07 GMT -5
they need to change the software to allow changes to the daily summary any time...instead of having to wait until after midnight |
|
|
|
Post by northwx on Feb 1, 2020 18:24:57 GMT -5
This is a seriously big deal... We're here to supply missing data and correct erroneous data from ASOS, and augment data beyond the capability of ASOS. So we did what the NWS told us - report snowfall in 3 & 6 hourly obs using the 931nnn. We used to correct the daily data so the monthly summary would be more accurate. I'm going to be speaking with the NWS about how they want to receive this data, since we are now under orders to look like a lame LAWRS station. I was told, "you cause problems for us downloading the data when you edit the additive data" - I have to ask how this is an issue? Whenever there is a warm restart, the 5appp disappears - we were supplying the missing data, just like our contracts state... Okay, now we are being told "no". How many have to die because of this action? No one will ever find out! Most of what we're being denied directly affects the NWS and their accuracy, not the FAA or even most pilots. Yes, we're being set up for 9/30/23. Start schmoozing your congress friends, because the battle will get hot again, and a lot sooner than we think.
|
|
binovc
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by binovc on Feb 4, 2020 18:35:15 GMT -5
My email to Mr. Cunningham:
"...One example is when the ASOS reports a false tip (“P0001”) or a “phantom” rain (“P0000”), with no precipitation occurring. We are then NOT to remove the resultant P group, even though everyone who subsequently reads the observation is going to be confused."
The response:
"According to Paragraph 13.46 the Hourly Precipitation amount is ‘automated only’, and therefore the observer should not be editing it. And pilots do not use that data and it has no effect on arriving/departing aircraft."
I decided not to belabor the topic with him, figuring it would go nowhere. But a) I'm pretty sure some pilots do look at additive data, b) pilots (or arriving/departing aircraft) are not the only end-user.
Yes I think he's trying to dumb-down wx observations for the the benefit of those less qualified to do so, so that those persons can concentrate on their job of controlling air traffic.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowwx on Feb 4, 2020 21:50:36 GMT -5
Our Asos has false I group all the time. It states there’s ice when there is none. As a pilot, Kenny, I need to know is there precip or not. I need to see the precip correctly Kenny. Stop trying to dumb it down Bottom line is the automated system is not consistent nor accurate when you need it most. And yes Kenny it does effect departures and arrivals. Stop being so clueless. When I sign my initials to an observation it’s my liability Kenny. When the judge says why didn’t you correct it. I’ll say the faa said not to and he’ll say case for the deceased family and you guys will pay through the nose. Not on my watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by northwx on Feb 5, 2020 19:46:48 GMT -5
It costs the FAA nothing additionally to produce this data, and it might seriously affect something - from pilots, forecasts - including TAFs - runway maintenance, to the casual user who wants to know how much snow fell in the last 6 hours. I'm getting phone calls from the NWS - at home where I don't keep this info - wanting to know how much snow we had... This is a bad decision from Foggy Bottom.
|
|
