Parsing visibility values and QNH in EU style metars

[Svilen Vassilev]

Firstly, congratulations and big thanks to the software authors on launching yet another extremely valuable and helpful project for the community. Respect!

 

Now the report (screenshot below):

 

1) I noticed, that when parsing a metar (EU style), the visibility value (9999) which is commonly interpreted as "greater than 10 kilometers" does not get interpreted and is instead used literally as "9999" and without including the word "visibility".

 

2) When parsing the QNH value, the "Q" letter is also used literally and not interpolated to "QNH"

 

This effectively means that pilots won't hear the visibility and QNH information in a meaningful, conventional format in the ATIS.

 

Here's the screenie with the original metar and the p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]d ATIS text:

 

 

I fully realize, that these issues are related to the European style metars, whereas the software was initially built based on US/NA conventions and metar styles. It would be very useful though, and much appreciated, if the European idiosyncrasies could also be taken into account and handled in the code, so that the potential user base of vATIS is extended to include European countries.

 

If you go that way, there's one more thing of importance that could be taken into account, and that's the transition altitudes and transition levels, which in Europe vary from country to country and even from airport to airport. The transition altitude is always published on charts/AIPs but it's not uncommon to have it mentioned in the ATIS as well, and as for the transition level, it's typically given by ATC and quite commonly included in the ATIS as well, depending on local SOP. Thus having am ATIS string such as for example "Transition altitude 9500ft, transition level 110" is quite common. Probably these entries can be implemented as part of the facility profiles in vATIS?

 

Once again, many thanks for building this for all of us!

[Don Desfosse]

It would be very useful though, and much appreciated, if the European idiosyncrasies could also be taken into account and handled in the code, so that the potential user base of vATIS is extended to include European countries.

Suggestion to Justin, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming he pursues this recommendation. Add a checkbox to select USA vs. ICAO (vs. ??) format. I was thinking of a global configuration for simplicity, which would work UNTIL you get a controller that controls facilities that cross formats.... Or maybe the best of both worlds would be to have a global default selection that can be overridden in a facility configuration.

[Justin Shannon]

Thank you for your suggestions, Svilen. Supporting the ICAO/EU style is on my to-do list, but don't expect it right away.

[Svilen Vassilev]

Thank you for your consideration, Justin!

[Justin Shannon]

I've begun writing the logic to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] EU style METARS, but I need some feedback...

 

I noticed, that when parsing a metar (EU style), the visibility value (9999) which is commonly interpreted as "greater than 10 kilometers" does not get interpreted and is instead used literally as "9999" and without including the word "visibility".

With regards to the visibility, aside from 0000 and 9999 (from the docomeentation I've read), is the visibility always written in whole thousands? For example: 1000, 2000, 3000, etc.? Or can there be variations, such as 2350, 1625?

 

Thus having am ATIS string such as for example "Transition altitude 9500ft, transition level 110" is quite common. Probably these entries can be implemented as part of the facility profiles in vATIS?

Will the ATIS include both phrases, or just one or the other?

 

 

If there are any other requests or changes that need to be made to accommodate EU style METARs, please let me know.

[Mark Nelson 1266047]

First off thanks for the great contribution to the community.

 

One thing I noticed when reading and listening to the generated ATIS for Geneva is, that in Europe, we always add a "zero" infront of a runway with just one digit. E.g. "zero five" instead of "*five". Would be great if you could consider this aswell, whilst working on the "Europe option".

 

Thanks and best regards

Mark

[Zhenhao Yang]

disregard... moderator please delete this post, thx

[Bradford Lee]

First off thanks for the great contribution to the community.

 

One thing I noticed when reading and listening to the generated ATIS for Geneva is, that in Europe, we always add a "zero" infront of a runway with just one digit. E.g. "zero five" instead of "*five". Would be great if you could consider this aswell, whilst working on the "Europe option".

 

Thanks and best regards

Mark

 

Tried editing the runways.xml file and changing the runway numbers there from "5" to "05" for example and seeing what happens?

[David Zhong]

Surely the guys from Europe have noticed that the ATIS format is in the US format and not the ICAO format that most European countries use?

 

We Australian controllers have already been warned that vATIS does not currently conform to the Australian format (which is different again!) and we should not use it until it does. (As an aside, Justin, I'm happy to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist with getting it implemented if you wanted)

[Tim Wong]

As in Europe, most of the people - it feels like 90% - will normally use Euroscope for controlling which includes an inbuilt ATIS creator. So, actually there is no need to use an external programme because vATIS was initially built for VRC or vSTAR users (mainly in the US) .

[Justin Shannon]

I don't have any future plans on expanding ATIS parsing for other non-standard formats.