-RASN... -SNRA... -SN... -RA

JetCrew

JetCrew

Well-Known Member
File Feb 23, 15 18 16.jpeg


So I've been recently getting an "education" on what could be interpreted as freezing precip. Don't have access to many, but there was something that was brought to my attention when looking at holdover tables from two different companies.

Outside of the usual "FZRA" or "FZDZ", he precip descriptions listed in the subject can be interpreted as freezing based on the the pic included here. If interpreted as written, am I to assume the forecast should be written -SN -RA before I revert to the holdover table? Or does the combination -SNRA or -RASN also require a gander at the table?

I don't ever recall seeing separate descriptors for light snow AND light rain in the same METAR or TAF. Upon discussing this with flight crews, it could also be up to pilot discretion based on precip they observe when physically at the reporting station prior to pushback.

I know every shop is different but how would you interpret this?
 
Give those caveats, I would consider -RASN to qualify for needing to refer to the freezing precip table. I have also never seen a "split" descriptor before. If either the rain or the snow is considered to be moderate they would be described as RASN.
 
Kind of from the sidelines here, but don't ever say "The report says FZRA but if we call it -SN we can get you out of there" when, in fact, I've told you it's "Ice Capades" down on the ramp and the plane in front of us in the deice queue is on attempt #6 to get cleaned up. Local information is awesome.

True story.
 
That's in chapter six of a book I'm working on entitled, "Admissions of a High Minimums Airbus Captain and What I Learned About the Word 'We'"
 
And something else for dispatchers. Many beg, beg, beg for PIREPS about turbulence and, experimentally, I've done loads of them on a leg like DTW-BWI where the dispatcher says nothing about turbulence besides a cryptic turbulence plot that tells me all about mountain wave in the Rocky Mountains and nothing else.

On the way way, almost the same route, after having my ass kicked for an hour, the remarks section will say "should be smooth, no reports".

You do know, the guy that reported turbulence in the climb and an ass kicking at multiple altitudes might be the same guy turning the plane around and flying back.
 
Derg said:
And something else for dispatchers. Many beg, beg, beg for PIREPS about turbulence and, experimentally, I've done loads of them on a leg like DTW-BWI where the dispatcher says nothing about turbulence besides a cryptic turbulence plot that tells me all about mountain wave in the Rocky Mountains and nothing else.

On the way way, almost the same route, after having my ass kicked for an hour, the remarks section will say "should be smooth, no reports".

You do know, the guy that reported turbulence in the climb and an ass kicking at multiple altitudes might be the same guy turning the plane around and flying back.
Click to expand...

Instead of lecturing dispatchers on how to do their jobs, why not ask your dispatchers why they did what they did? What did they see and consider in their planning? If you have been sending PIREPs why not ask the dispatcher about that..
 
Flagship_dxer said:
Instead of lecturing dispatchers on how to do their jobs, why not ask your dispatchers why they did what they did? What did they see and consider in their planning? If you have been sending PIREPs why not ask the dispatcher about that..
Click to expand...
Eh I'm willing to give @Derg the benefit of the doubt here. Much like pilots, not all dispatchers are created equal.
 
Luigi said:
Eh I'm willing to give @Derg the benefit of the doubt here. Much like pilots, not all dispatchers are created equal.
Click to expand...

But if hes giving PIREPS or seeing PIREPS from other pilots for a certain area and his next flight is going through the same area but his dispatch release says no PIREPs in that area shouldnt the question be asked of that dispatcher if he received and saw those PIREPs and if not why those PIREPs werent forwarded or received? Maybe there is a lack of DRM, the dispatcher had too many messages and missed/forgot about those PIREPs? Part of the joint operational control is to ask questions. It is about getting things right. Complaining after the fact doesnt help anyone. If there are things that do not match up, it is best to figure out why and go from there.
 
Flagship_dxer said:
But if hes giving PIREPS or seeing PIREPS from other pilots for a certain area and his next flight is going through the same area but his dispatch release says no PIREPs in that area shouldnt the question be asked of that dispatcher if he received and saw those PIREPs and if not why those PIREPs werent forwarded or received? Maybe there is a lack of DRM, the dispatcher had too many messages and missed/forgot about those PIREPs? Part of the joint operational control is to ask questions. It is about getting things right. Complaining after the fact doesnt help anyone. If there are things that do not match up, it is best to figure out why and go from there.
Click to expand...
Agreed, what I meant by benefit of the doubt is that maybe he did those things, or we weren't getting the entire story. What also seems possible is the dispatcher was overworked and just didn't check the route for PIREPs. These are the situations I avoid by writing more than "NO PIREPS ON RTE" in the remarks.
 
Flagship_dxer said:
Instead of lecturing dispatchers on how to do their jobs, why not ask your dispatchers why they did what they did? What did they see and consider in their planning? If you have been sending PIREPs why not ask the dispatcher about that..
Click to expand...

Because tier one, baby!

Derg said:
Kind of from the sidelines here, but [...] Local information is awesome.
Click to expand...

Other than the best site in the universe for planning altitudes, ride-n-ramp reports are a girl's best friend, man. Back to the point on hand, would it also benefit to check if there's a significant difference in h/o times between the two, and lean toward which is worse? Especially after considering a ramp's conditions, like certain NE area airports south of NYC but north of DC....Sorry if I'm repeating a point that's already been made.
 
Flagship_dxer said:
Instead of lecturing dispatchers on how to do their jobs, why not ask your dispatchers why they did what they did? What did they see and consider in their planning? If you have been sending PIREPs why not ask the dispatcher about that..
Click to expand...

I too will give Derg the benefit of the doubt here. Look, it helps every other dispatcher on the planet when you take the minute and a half and open up the PIREP editor and submit his report. Really the bare bones PIREP editor should be on the list of things you should have open at all times ready to go. Thankfully we are starting to see TAPS become a thing and I think that is a fantastic technology. Takes reporting out of everyone's hands.
 
I file them as much as I can.

I thought TAPS was neat at first but then I learned it takes an average of the last few hits so if you have a few smooth reports and one mod report in the middle. The smooth reports make that mod a light report. At least that's what it was doing a few months ago.
 
Flagship_dxer said:
Instead of lecturing dispatchers on how to do their jobs, why not ask your dispatchers why they did what they did? What did they see and consider in their planning? If you have been sending PIREPs why not ask the dispatcher about that..
Click to expand...

I do.

"Shift change, man"

Trust me, I want the feedback from dispatchers as much as I think they need it from the end user.
 
Well I was sort of serious. A lot of good points here that need to be conjoined. (do I need to look up conjoined?) Left alone, we lose all sense CRM and DRM
 
Turbulence planning is probably the most challenging part of the flight planning process. At one point this year I had 15 planes in the air on the same airway all at or close to the same altitude. A wide range of types from 737 to 777. No turbulence forecast, no indicators on the flight plan, no SIGMETs, no AIRMETs, no PIREPs, no turbulence reports sent automatically by the planes in front of them with that capability and then you get that one guy that complains that all altitudes are rough above FL300 and hes had to go all the way down to FL280 to find a better ride. ATC has the same thing happen to them. Nobody reports or complains about anything than you get that one guy that is having a rough go of things. Turbulence is so dynamic and subjective that it makes it difficult to get right. Nobody either pilot or dispatchers gets it right all the time in finding a good altitude with a smooth or acceptable ride. Its one of those things were you do your best to pick a good altitude or give extra fuel for contingencies. On some flights, you just have to accept turbulence as you are weight critical, tankage critical, or as in some parts of the world, even here in the US, ATC says certain altitudes are no go for various reasons. Its definitely one of the more challenging parts in the flight planning process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top