|
|
BINOVC
Sept 23, 2022 7:50:12 GMT -5
Post by alstein on Sept 23, 2022 7:50:12 GMT -5
what is correct and what is right are often two different things.
In the case of BINOVC, I think it's unnecessary. I usually just call it OVC. A full overcast sky 100% to me would be VV (if VV can be used) It is allowed though.
|
|
|
|
BINOVC
Sept 23, 2022 7:57:10 GMT -5
Post by alstein on Sept 23, 2022 7:57:10 GMT -5
doublepost by mistake.
|
|
|
|
BINOVC
Sept 23, 2022 14:30:14 GMT -5
Post by vorticity on Sept 23, 2022 14:30:14 GMT -5
The 7900.5 follows the standards prescribed in Federal Meteorological Handbook #1, Surface Weather Observations and Reports (FMH-1). FMH-1 Chapter 8, paragraph 8.5 Present Weather Reporting Standards states in part, "Unless directed elsewhere in the Handbook, the location of weather phenomena shall be reported as: 'occurring at the station' when within 5 statute miles of the point(s) of observation." So by definition, a TS 3-5SM from the station is "occurring at the station" and thus OHD.
|
|
|
|
BINOVC
Sept 26, 2022 17:09:18 GMT -5
Post by northwx on Sept 26, 2022 17:09:18 GMT -5
what is correct and what is right are often two different things. In the case of BINOVC, I think it's unnecessary. I usually just call it OVC. A full overcast sky 100% to me would be VV (if VV can be used) It is allowed though. My station is outside NEXRAD and the area pilots want to know if there is a hole in the OVC they can descend through and get underneath to fly VFR or if they have to get a clearance - BINOVC may very well be a critical remark. |
|
|
|
BINOVC
Sept 26, 2022 17:26:49 GMT -5
Post by northwx on Sept 26, 2022 17:26:49 GMT -5
7900 is a mess. it also says that a TS within 5SM of the stn is considered OHD. "techically" TS SE should be reported at OHD. but I see very few stations reporting what the book says. observers are better than the book and should be granted leeway. to me...a TS 3-5 SE of the ap is NOT OHD. You report your TS in present wx as if it were OHD, remark accurately - TS SE MOV __ . A TS 3-5SM SE is NOT OHD and should not be reported as OHD. OHD is better described in the use of VC and precip - if it is not falling on your head and is 10SM or closer it is VC (9.7a, b - but try putting VCSH in ASOS...). TS is not precip - so not on your airport but within 5SM you report it in present wx as TS with a remark with direction, 5-10SM out it is VCTS likewise with an accurate remark. 7900.5E 13.31a is in error, but 13.31c gives us the discretion to report accurately.
|
|
|
|
BINOVC
Apr 18, 2023 14:07:56 GMT -5
Post by wx12345 on Apr 18, 2023 14:07:56 GMT -5
northwx,
We aren't allowed to use BINOVC. But there are 2 remarks that we aren't allowed to use by an FAA QC that are allowed according to 7900-5D CIG LWR (DIR) and VIS LWR (DIR) We could have a prevailing visibility of 6 miles (9 to the North and 3 to the South) and we aren't allowed to input "VIS LWR S" when the manual clearly says we can. Maybe let Joe Calamita know.
|
|
|
|
BINOVC
May 7, 2023 21:30:39 GMT -5
Post by movedsouth on May 7, 2023 21:30:39 GMT -5
northwx, We aren't allowed to use BINOVC. But there are 2 remarks that we aren't allowed to use by an FAA QC that are allowed according to 7900-5D CIG LWR (DIR) and VIS LWR (DIR) We could have a prevailing visibility of 6 miles (9 to the North and 3 to the South) and we aren't allowed to input "VIS LWR S" when the manual clearly says we can. Maybe let Joe Calamita know. Howdy, now that I'm back online with a new handle... 1. Joe Calamita is no longer with the CWO program, though his directives still should be followed. 2. VIS, CIG, and CONDS LWR or HYR may be used when they don't meet criteria for sector or variable remarks AND are significant. 3. Your "FAA QC" is out to lunch - about as good as LAWRS IMHO. BINOVC is an effective and important remark as I've stated above and is certainly being used at a number of stations without complaint from on high. Whoever is telling you this nonsense better have authority to direct you! or simply ignore them. |
|
