AMOSSG/6-SN No.

18
12/10/06

AERODROME METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVING SYSTEMS STUDY GROUP

(AMOSSG)

SIXTH MEETING

Exeter, United Kingdom, 17 to 20 October 2006

Agenda Item 5: Aerodrome observation

requirements
5.1: Reporting requirements and criteria

REPORTING PRACTICES IN METARs AND LOCAL

REPORTS WITH AWOS

(Presented by Pekka Utela)

SUMMARY
This study note highlights potential inconsistent approaches to the reporting
practices of METAR, SPECI, local routine and special reports.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The SPECI issuance criteria are well defined in Annex 3 — Meteorological Service for
International Air Navigation. However, in the future SPECIs will not be issued when airports start to
apply a 30 minute METAR interval as endorsed by the future amendment 74 to Annex 3. When SPECIs
are not anymore used at an airport, the use of local special reports will be more important. The issuance
criteria for local special reports are much more open for interpretations.

1.2 METAR reporting steps and SPECI issuance criteria limits are well defined in Annex 3.
However, it has not been defined whether actual measured values or data processed according to METAR
reporting steps should be used in determining SPECI issuance. This has lead to inconsistency in reporting
practices.

(5 pages)
631997509.doc
 2
AMOSSG/6-SN No. 18

1.3 METAR, SPECI, local routine and special reports contain the field "Time of the
observation". Typically observers have a 10 minute observation period, during which they can determine
current weather conditions and edit a METAR. An AWOS provides measured values to the observer in
the beginning of this 10 minute period. Currently there are several interpretations on the use of Time of
observation in such situations. The use of Time of observation in automatic reports is also undefined.
However, time of the observation in a METAR or local report influences the issuance of SPECI or
special, especially during METAR observation period.

2. DISCUSSION

2.1 Annex 3 states that a local special report is issued when SPECI is issued. If SPECI is not
used anymore should observers still issue special reports according to SPECI criteria? What are the
consequences if a special report is issued according to SPECI criteria?

2.2 METAR and SPECI use 10 minute average data, whereas local routine and special
reports are based on one and two minute averages. In practise long and short term averages are not
directly comparable, and SPECI criteria can not be directly applied to local special reports without
problems. Several different approaches have been considered.

2.3 There are at least the following possible practices:

a) observer decides when a special report should be issued. AWOS does not prompt for
a special. If SPECI is in use, then a special is issued automatically when SPECI is
issued.

This kind of practise is currently used widely. Mostly the reason for this is that there
are no practical rules defined for special, and SPECIs are still issued. Drawback is
that this gives no real solution for fully automatic systems when SPECI is not in use.
Even though an "autospecial" has not been defined, it seems likely that it will be
needed in the near future. The most problematic situation will be faced at the airports
that have observers present during the office hours and the rest of the day reporting is
done by AWOS;

b) SPECI criteria limit values are applied to local reports directly, i.e. a comparison is
made between the latest issued local routine or special report values and current short
term (one or two minute) average values. This solves the problem of comparable
data, but leads easily to usability problems. One or two minute averages have a
tendency to vary much more than 10 minute average data, which leads to very
frequent special reports in changing conditions, especially if something similar to
improvement SPECI 10 minute wait rule (ICAO Annex 3, Amendment 3, 3.1.3) is
not used. Unlike in SPECI there is no common factor between a local special and
10 minute time frame. Due to this fact it is unclear if a 10 minute interval would be a
good practise for improvement special.

While local routine and special reports are defined as a source for ATIS data, it
would be preferable to avoid more frequent special issuance interval than e.g. 5 or
 3
AMOSSG/6-SN No. 18

more minutes. More frequent update interval of ATIS message without major reason
causes unnecessary information transfers between pilot and ATC, because pilot has
listened older ATIS information than controller sees to be valid. Anyway ATC has
the most important current data also available and can update the pilot when needed.

When an AWOS is used to determine special issuance then one possible solution
would be that special issuance criteria are checked only e.g. once a minute or every
two minutes even though the data is updated more often in the system. This would
reduce the number of specials issued in rapidly changing weather conditions. The
drawback is that there may be a delay in special criterion detection. The other
solution would be immediate detection of special criterion and e.g. one or two minute
waiting time before sending. If during the waiting time some other special criterion is
met the data would be updated. This method has more drawbacks and there would be
no certainty that any special will be issued in reasonable time;

c) new criteria are defined for local special report. This requires preparation work and
takes time. The final result could be best, but in the meanwhile inconsistency
remains; and

d) special criteria definitions are left to the local authorities as currently stated in
Annex 3. This will certainly increase the inconsistency in reporting practices.

2.4 Annex 3 defines clearly the METAR reporting steps and SPECI limits. However, it has
not been defined whether actual measured values or data processed according to METAR reporting steps
should be used in determining SPECI issuance.

2.5 Using measured values as criteria may cause a situation, where the AWOS prompts for a
SPECI but the rounded values in the SPECI report are identical to the values in the preceding report. On
the other hand the system may not prompt for a SPECI even if rounded values (and the final report, if
issued) would appear to meet SPECI criteria.

Examples:

a) wind mean 100˚, wind speed 10.4 kt and wind gust increase from 19.1 kt to 19.6 kt
does not fulfil the 10 kt gust SPECI criterion using the exact values, but the reported
values would change from 10010KT to 10010G20KT.

b) wind mean 100˚, wind speed 8 kt and wind variation between 14 and 185 degrees
does not meet 180˚ limit and would be coded 10008 010V190. However, somebody
may ask whether the reported 180 degrees variation should be reported as VRB08KT.
Analogous to this would be a controller reading wind variation from a wind display.
Because of 10˚ rounding practise he would see 14 to 185 as 10 to 190 and would
report 180˚ variation instead of 170 (exact variation is 171).

c) visibility reporting is a clear example of value change to reporting step before using
other reporting rules. Visibility over 10 km is cut to 10 km and minimum visibility is
compared against this value. Like stated in a former study note, prevailing visibility
 4
AMOSSG/6-SN No. 18

16 km and minimum visibility 7 km would fulfil minimum visibility reporting rule,

but 16 km is reduced to 10 km and so minimum visibility is not reported.

d) if all values are consistently formatted to reporting steps before any other action such
as checking for reportable values, report code cross checking or SPECI criteria
fulfilment, a system will work consistently in all situations. However, this
interpretation of METAR coding practices is in contradiction to current local
interpretation at least in some countries.

2.6 Annex 3 states that Time of the observation is Day and actual time of the observation in
UTC. While observers use a 10 minute observing period, an AWOS typically provides 10 minute mean
values for METAR and one or two minute values for local reports automatically in a report template at
the beginning of the observation period. During 10 minutes the observer verifies the automatic
information, adds missing information and finally creates the report and sends it.

2.7 In the following examples it is assumed that METAR observation period starts at 20' and
ends at 30'. Depending on interpretation Time of the observation reported has been either xxxx20Z or
xxxx30Z. These both practices are still widely used. If xxxx20' is used, then it is not possible to send
SPECI during observing period or those two report time stamps would be in contradiction to each other.
If xxxx30' is used then it is possible to send a SPECI, but METAR cannot be sent before the end of
observing period and the METAR must be updated. Third interpretation has been made after the latest
amendment to Annex 3. According to that interpretation Time of the observation is the time of report
creation. Then reported Time of the observation can be anything between xxxx20Z and xxxx30Z, e.g.
141628Z. Most countries seem to want that METARs have consistent time stamps and use always 30' as
Time of the observation.

2.8 Due to the fact that automatic data in the previous examples is 10 minute old at the time
of issuance, some countries have decided to use a shorter time between automatic data update and the end
of observation period. Typical time difference has been five minutes, but even a two minute difference is
in use. Two minute time frame for METAR finalization is short, but with proper preparation work it has
been practical, because observers can still use the full 10 minutes observing period. This method has the
advantage that automatic data is updated close to sending time and normally stays valid. If automatic data
would be updated at the very end of observation period it might cause inconsistency in the final code and
would require fast actions from the observer to be able to send METAR out in time.

2.9 The AUTO METAR situation is different, because the observer is no longer available. If
the same automatic update time is used then there is a 10 minute period when data is not updated at all
and report is sent out with 10 minute old data. In practise Time of the observation is 20' even if the
message would be sent out at 30'. If 20' is used, then it is not possible to send SPECI during observing
period or those two report time stamps would be in contradiction to each other. With AUTO METAR
automatic data update could happen at 30' and it would be sent out immediately. The advantage is that the
actual time of the observation would be 30' and data would be from the same period as observer's
observing period. This means that if an airport has an observer present during office hours and operates
rest of the day fully automatically, then automatic data update time would have to change depending on
the situation.
 5
AMOSSG/6-SN No. 18

2.10 It is also a common practise that observers tend to create and send the report before the
end of the observing period. If automated system sends a report immediately AFTN may receive the
report several minutes before nominal time, and if the time stamp 30' is in use, the sending time is earlier
than the time of the observation. This operational problem is possible to avoid by buffering the METAR
and actually sending it out at the end of observing period. If weather conditions change the readymade
report may be called back from buffer and updated before actual sending time.

2.11 There has been an interpretation that also corrected and delayed METARs would use
report creation time as the time of the observation. In these cases Time of the observation would differ
from standard METARs. More common interpretation is that a corrected METAR must have the same
time stamp as the original, because Time of the observation has not been changed. On the other hand a
delayed METAR has different Time of the observation, because nominal observing period has passed.
Time of the observation would be then report creation time, e.g. 141634Z.

2.12 Time of the observation for SPECI is not self evident either. When a SPECI criterion is
reached and SPECI is prompted that time could be used as Time of the observation. This practise is
currently widely used. If observer validates and adds data, creates report then the creation time would be
as well Time of the observation. Anyhow, there is a potential difference between METAR and SPECI
Time of the observation definition.

2.13 Similar problems are found with local routine and special reports. There is typically more
data to be checked in a local report. A longer period may be necessary for the observer to check and
validate the data. Another question is whether a 10 minute observing period can be applied to local
routine reports also. When one or two minute averages are used instead of 10 minute averages, should the
automatic data be updated in a similar manner to METAR report creation? Especially consider special
issuance during local routine report observing period.

2.14 Note that automatic, corrected and delayed local routine reports are not defined.
Automatic local routine report would have no difference to local routine reports sent by observers, if
current coding practise would be used. Currently a local special report must be used to correct local
routine report. It will have different Time of the observation and the original local routine report remains
as valid observation in the history. Can delayed report be defined by a different Time of the observation,
or is there need for a separately defined delayed report?

3. ACTION BY THE GROUP

3.1 A consistent approach to the SPECI and special limits and usage of Time of observation
are important in ensuring a standard and well understood product. The group is invited to:

a) consider the contents of this paper, and

b) consider the best approach to take in ensuring a more consistent approaches are
adopted.

— END —