PIREPs

denverpilot

denverpilot

Tied Down
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
55,469
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
DenverPilot
Fascinating to me that in the SAME NASA CallBack... (which is dedicated to PIREPs...)

- One controller says he didn't receive an important PIREP until 1:20 after it was issued.
- Another controller says controllers should work harder to enter PIREPs into AISR.
- Yet another controller says he had to leave his normal workstation to go look at stuff on the AISR computer, far enough away that an aircraft making a mistake and descending out of 9,000 in terrain, was only noticed when he walked back to his normal workstation -- and he was alone in the facility at night.

Anyway, interesting reading... what an utter mess the PIREP overall "system" appears to be... but we know that... because of how few actually show up on PIREP maps from the automated/official AFFS sources, too.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...41327&ca=9b8c6ec8-666f-482b-919e-07ff95c67a87
 
Every time I call or radio FSS and file a PIREP, it shows up on the map within a few minutes. The problem with PIREPs is within ATC facilities, which don't have the manpower to collect and disseminate PIREPs, particularly when doing so would help people make go/no-go decisions on the ground or en-route prior to reaching a specific area. This has always been an underutilized weather product.

The times when PIREPs are most crucial are often the times when weather is actively rolling through an area. When weather events occur, frequency congestion and controller workloads peak. One of the first tasks that get relegated to the bottom of the "to-do" list is to disseminate a PIREP into AISR. The solution is to more easily enable PIREPs to be filed in flight, something I believe we'll see very soon.
 
Harold Rutila said:
The solution is to more easily enable PIREPs to be filed in flight, something I believe we'll see very soon.
Click to expand...

How? Some sort of UAT data downlink? There's no universal data path for it to be downlinked today, from a purely systems-engineering perspective.

Certainly a two-way data system that could offer things like reception and acknowledgement of IFR clearances and changes (and yes, I know some airlines have datalink tech for this, but it's not going to scale up in bandwidth or scale down in cost well for the average GA pilot using the base technologies they're using) and PIREPs and other comms, would be a "nice to have" and maybe even work if one can type in turbulence...

But it seems to me from a purely systems design point of view that the split between control and weather on the ground is the real design flaw of the system now that nobody talks to or interacts with FSS much anymore.

Just questions and an observation.

If suddenly datalink down were available in flight for all via cheap non-certified devices (let's not even talk about what an FAA certified data downlink is going to cost) how much would you personally pay for it?

I can't see the average GA pilot who's not a "gadget freak" and yeah, some of us are, paying much to be able to send data down to FAA for clearances or PIREPs or anything else I can think of that requires a downlink.
 
Interesting reading in the CALLBACK. That's the first time I have go to the site, I will now get the monthly newsletters. Thanks.

I must say PIREP's are common in SE Alaska. Everyone from Alaska Airlines to part 135 folks and GA flyers give them. I normally use RCO to report them and review PIREPS when looking at weather before a flight. I don't have inflight WX a call to the nearest RCO is my best bet to get current PIREPS.

NOAA's Alaska Aviation Weather Unit (AAWA) and the FAA Aviation Weather Cam (live images every 10 minutes) are my go to sites for flight planning.

As for the problems that occur between the time a PIREP is reported and made available to flyers surely could be streamlined.
 
Yeah lots of folks don't know about that pub @AKBill. It is usually pretty good. Goes back and forth between GA, airline/commercial and ATC reports depending on the monthly hot topic.
 
Been getting callback for decades. Even before email. Like, when they would actually mail you a copy.

Sometimes there's some really good stuff in there. Other times it just seems like it's airline guys beating their chests.
 
Anymouse said:
Been getting callback for decades. Even before email. Like, when they would actually mail you a copy.

Sometimes there's some really good stuff in there. Other times it just seems like it's airline guys beating their chests.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Same here. But it's got a higher signal to noise ratio than some other aviation pubs. :)
 
denverpilot said:
How? Some sort of UAT data downlink? There's no universal data path for it to be downlinked today, from a purely systems-engineering perspective.
Click to expand...
I wish there was a link on FF that was a pirep button. It could be quick and easy to put what conditions you are reporting and it would already know your type/alt/position and when you submit it, it would go to FSS for input into the system.

As already mentioned, usually when pireps would be most useful our facility is so busy with re-routes/deviations and trying to just stay afloat it makes it tough to get the data from the pilots and input. We still do what we can. As a pilot I wish it was better. Especially cloud bases/tops and temps.
 
ADSB should have contained a pirep reporting message. Even a subset of the information would have been useful, and a lot of it could be encoded in a few bits.

You know it had to come up in the discussions... I wonder why they didn't include it. I can't believe no one thought of it.
 
Mistake Not... said:
ADSB should have contained a pirep reporting message. Even a subset of the information would have been useful, and a lot of it could be encoded in a few bits.

You know it had to come up in the discussions... I wonder why they didn't include it. I can't believe no one thought of it.
Click to expand...

Because it wasn't designed to even have a data link function at first? That was only added to UAT as an enticement for what was otherwise just a duplicate surveillance system that did absolutely nothing for the pilot/owner of the device that a Mode C transponder couldn't accomplish.

It's an identification system with crap slapped on to it to make it seem like it was always intended to be useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top