|
|
Post by tornado on Nov 6, 2015 15:28:26 GMT -5
How many rules are LAWRS observers exempt from, that CWOs must follow? According to the 7900.5C Table of Contents, 51 of them: (Which begin in para. 9-13, so scroll down a bit)  At the safety panels, a good question to ask is, "How is it not degradation of service, if LAWRS observers have 51 less rules to follow, than a Contract Weather Observer?" |
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Nov 6, 2015 15:47:11 GMT -5
Great point and a great reference tornado. I'll be using it.
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by rich on Nov 6, 2015 15:52:53 GMT -5
How many rules are LAWRS observers exempt from, that CWOs must follow? According to the 7900.5C Table of Contents, 51 of them: (Which begin in para. 9-13, so scroll down a bit) At the safety panels, a good question to ask is, "How is it not degradation of service, if LAWRS observers have 51 less rules to follow, than a Contract Weather Observer?" In addition to that don't forget about the FAA/NATCA agreement mentioned in the service standards for LAWRS observations (Service Level C), it's definitely a degradation of service: The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), the groups representing the interests of the air traffic controllers, and the FAA have agreed that at this level of service, the air traffic control specialists are allowed the option of adding operationally significant remarks. |
|
|
|
Post by swifterz on Nov 6, 2015 18:50:28 GMT -5
I'm trying to find the article but recently NTSB released an investigation that said one of the contribuiting factors to an aircraft crash was that pertinent weather remarks where not included in the METAR that ATC entered into the ATIS. Gonna keep searching and find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rich on Nov 6, 2015 19:24:01 GMT -5
I'm trying to find the article but recently NTSB released an investigation that said one of the contribuiting factors to an aircraft crash was that pertinent weather remarks where not included in the METAR that ATC entered into the ATIS. Gonna keep searching and find it. Probably was the UPS crash at BHM . A variable ceiling remark that was reported by the CWO never made it on to the ATIS. www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/AAR1402.aspxProbable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's continuation of an unstabilized approach and their failure to monitor the aircraft's altitude during the approach, which led to an inadvertent descent below the minimum approach altitude and subsequently into terrain. Contributing to the accident were (1) the flight crew's failure to properly configure and verify the flight management computer for the profile approach; (2) the captain's failure to communicate his intentions to the first officer once it became apparent the vertical profile was not captured; (3) the flight crew's expectation that they would break out of the clouds at 1,000 feet above ground level due to incomplete weather information; (4) the first officer's failure to make the required minimums callouts; (5) the captain's performance deficiencies likely due to factors including, but not limited to, fatigue, distraction, or confusion, consistent with performance deficiencies exhibited during training; and (6) the first officer's fatigue due to acute sleep loss resulting from her ineffective off-duty time management and circadian factors. |
|
|
|
Post by rich on Nov 6, 2015 19:58:42 GMT -5
By the way the BHM crash resulted in the attached memo being released. LAWRS observers are stilling ignoring the last sentence of the first paragraph. It violates the NATCA/FAA agreement mentioned in the LAWRS service standards. |
|
|
|
Post by tornado on Jun 7, 2017 9:14:59 GMT -5
I just counted up the NA LAWRS rules in the 7900.5D; there are 60 of them.
Since there are 10 pressure procedures that read NA LAWRS/NA CWO, that
still leaves 50 fewer procedures that the limited program of LAWRS must
report.
|
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Jun 7, 2017 10:08:38 GMT -5
That's the number I was looking for recently and that's just unbelievable! Thank you, Tornado.
skobie
|
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Jun 7, 2017 11:11:39 GMT -5
and those NA LAWRS are just the tip of the iceberg. ATCT is also NOT required to report significant cloud types unless THEY deem them significant. most of these people would not know a significant cloud from a rain drop. most ATCT's don't report ltg/TS remarks. I would think a pilot might be interested in knowing where a TS is located...if he can't see it in clouds or low vis...and what direction it is moving. atct rarely, if ever, reports hail size.
and then we have this idea that the tower is going to take observation from hundreds of feet in the air. here's what will happen with that. in a freezing drizzle situation, observers at CWOs are outside every few minutes to check for freezing pcpn. we check to see where the ice is forming...as it forms on elevated surfaces before forming on the relatively warmer ground surfaces. we add a remark: ICE FORMING ON ELEVATED SURFACES. elevated surfaces...aircraft fuselages and wings... but...hey...our tower says they will call the pilot for the weather...or they are going to get some sap on the ground to be responsible for something they are not qualified to do. I can see it now...tower calls their ground guru...and if said guru answers...tower says to go check for ice. guru goes out and reports no ice on ground. but...no impact on safety...
but reporting the weather on the ground from a room 10 to 20 stories or more above ground is within acceptable tolerances, so says the FAA.
|
|
