Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Mastering the Metar

By Stephen Pope / Published: Jan 24, 2012
Rate it! 100% or 0%

I was surprised when I read recently that many new airline pilot job applicants struggle with decoding basic metar weather reports. It would seem to me that if you’ve done enough flying to reach the interview stage with a commercial carrier, you would have interpreted hundreds if not thousands of metars along the way.

Maybe it’s the invention of software that can translate metars into “plain English” that has caused such befuddlement among would-be airline pilots. Still, with a little practice metars aren’t hard to grasp – and being able to do so could save your bacon if you’re staring down an un-translated report and need to make a go/no-go decision in marginal weather.

First things first: A metar is a weather report issued near the end of each hour, while a SPECI is a special metar that alerts pilots of new hazards, such as thunderstorms or low ceilings and visibility that arise during the hour.

Metar information is always given in a specific order, and that’s key to understanding how to read one, especially when they get complicated. (It’s also important to realize that if data is missing, such as the altimeter setting, for example, it will simply be omitted.)

The order in which metar data is given is: Where; When; Wind; Visibility; Significant Hazards; Clouds; Temp/Dew Point; Altimeter Setting; and Remarks.

Let’s break down each of these in the following Metar:

METAR KABC 121755Z AUTO 21016G24KT 180V240 1SM R11/P6000FT -RA BR BKN015 OVC025 06/04 A2990 RMK A02 PK WND 20032/25

Where

KABC is the airport identifier. All controlled airports in the continental U.S. begin with the letter K.

When

All dates and times are UTC using the 24-hour clock. The first two digits are the day (sorry, you have to know the month) and the last four are the time, followed by a Z to indicate UTC (“Zulu” time). In this example, it’s the 12th day of the month and the time of the observation was 17:55 UTC.

(NOTE: The word AUTO simply tells us this is an automatic observation with no human intervention. If it said COR instead, that would mean it is a corrected observation. If a human performed the observation, it wouldn’t say anything.)

Wind

The wind is given in tens of degrees from true north with the next two digits telling us is the speed in knots. G means gusts to whatever max speed, and V means variable by 60 degrees or more for winds that are greater than 6 knots (the term VRB will be used for variable winds 6 knots or less). So in this example, the wind is blowing from 210 degrees at 16 knots with peak gusts to 24 knots. The winds are also variable from 180 degrees to 240 degrees.

Visibility

Visibility is given in statute miles and fractions, with spaces between numbers denoting fractions. In our example the vis is 1 statute mile. If the visibility is 1 mile or less or the runway visual range is 6,000 feet or less, the RVR will also be given. In this example, the RVR for Runway 11 is reported as 6,000 feet (an M or P will be affixed to tell us whether the value is lower or higher than reportable RVR; a V will be used if the RVR is variable, e.g. 2000V4000).

Comments (11) Post a comment

All Comments

airsteve172's picture

We are no longer in the age of the telgraph, teletype or smoke signals. Current technology allows phenominal amounts of data to be transferred virtually anywhere in the world in the blink of an eye, so can anyone give me a logical reason as to why we need to interpret some primitive code just to get some basic weather data???

DigDug's picture

Yeah but we're in the age of 140 character tweets, hashtags, LOL, OMG and BFF. Metars seem to fit the times perfectly.

Seriously though, reading a whole list of weather reports is much quicker and easier scanning raw Metars as opposed to reading plain English. That's my opinion anyway.

RocketMan's picture

I agree with airsteve that technological advancements allow pilots to obtain very detailed weather information at any given time but I think the METAR is still a valuable resource. Sure, I can retrieve practically any weather information I'd like using my iPad, but the METAR delivers all of the relevant pieces of information pilots need quickly, concisely and in a format we are used to hearing/reading. Just listening to the current ATIS takes about 10 seconds but it gives us a great idea of the weather to expect at an airport. I'm a big fan of using all the technology possible during preflight but in the air I don't need any unnecessary distractions from my iPad.

Dick Baker's picture

Nuts. Tweets are for iPhones and pre-teenage attention spans. The delivery time difference between a METAR that is condensed/abbreviated to the point of imcomprehensibilty and one that is decoded into plain English is scarcely perceptible in modern delivery modes. Why make it harder than it has to be to get vital WX info?

airsteve172's picture

The only practical purpose that I can see for this archaic drivel is to impress our non-flying buddies who look at us with awe for being able to decipher that which seems incomprehensible to mere ground-dwelling mortals.

airsteve172's picture

F U CN RD THS U 2 CN BCM A PLT LOL

Claudio's picture

Depends where you live. If you live in Hawaii, for example, you better be able to read textual metars. Graphical weather products (except for surface analysis charts) for the most part do not exist - most graphical weather products are only for the 48 contiguous states. XM weather is a fiction - there is no satelite coverage here, and there never will be - for XM, it would make no economic sense (according to XM themselves). Most programs that translate metars into plain English are for fee subscription based services. Flying is expensive enough without having to pay subscription fees for something I can do myself. Many translations into plain English are simply done wrong. I tried the DUAT/DUATs ones once, and the translation was complete and utter nonsense (it translated MTNS as Montana instead of Mountains, for example). Metars are always available, are always free, are always unmangled, and can be read in 5 seconds flat by anybody with about 10 minutes training. Most of the funny hazard descriptions you need not worry about - learn those that occur in your locality. Knowing metars also makes listening to ATIS or AWOS/ASOS telephone recordings much easier, as they are basically spoken metars.

iused2fly's picture

This is a good example of the broader problems people in aviation struggle with. What follows are the things I’d love to see modernized, my wish list for the 21st century aviator.

We still use WW-2 style weather hieroglyphics which inevitably lead to reading or interpretive errors by some pilots and could possibly contribute to some accidents. Many, if not most student pilots and their instructors are still training and teaching on the same beat up 172s, 152s or Cherokees with the same basic VFR gear that I flew during my private course in the summer 1974. Meanwhile, the aviation industry produces new Cessnas, Diamonds and Curruses (Cirri?) replete with flat-panels, GPS navigators, flight computers and autopilots. How does the current training system jive with our 21st century aircraft? How could that disparity possibly encourage more flight training for the long term?

Pilots still dogleg VOR to VOR on trips, while GPS could allow all of us to “go direct” with greater efficiency. ATC still uses many ground-based weather radars, far inferior to that of most new airplanes' flat panels which have modern tools like XM weather, TAWS and TCAS. So ATC is of little to VFR pilots who stumble into IMC. We lack sufficient bandwidth for our transponders to transmit all but the most critical information: altitude, speed, direction and aircraft identifier. Pilots and ATC would clearly benefit from a high bandwidth, expandable, two-way datalink to be used for routine ATC clearances/instructions and uplink to weather information, TCAS etc, freeing up crowded Com channels for emergencies. The reciprocating engines we fly behind are only updates of 1940s technology. ILS is an increasingly expensive 1950s technology that is well past its best before date. And who knows whether there will be a large scale American producer of avgas after 2020. Who’s going to buy used airplanes if they can’t get gas.

These issues relate to the major obstacles in aviation which add ever more cost, discourage competition and suppress innovation:

• Too few engine/airframe/avionics/fuel manufacturers and producers compete in an increasingly shrinking market
• The omnipresent regulatory burden that stifles growth, limits competition, clings to outdated technologies and rules well after they are useful and, perhaps worst of all, fundamentally encourages the status quo at the expense of progress.

What we need is a true 21st century, fully integrated aviation system. Commercial aviation needs more runways nation wide, to fly routes more efficiently and better serve customers at less cost.. So why aren't the FAA and NASA working on a two-way, high-bandwidth data uplink between air and ground and a touchscreen interface between pilots and ATC and a voice activated cockpit?

To improve aviation safety the regulator should over a reasonable time period mandate updates to certified aircrafts’ mandatory equipment lists, to help reduce injuries and fatalities and reduce frivolous tort law suits. Here are a few possible additions:

• Slaved heading indicators, to provide a 100% accurate directional instrument
• Simple heading hold autopilots, to create a safe, reliable means of extricating VFR pilots from unscheduled encounters with IMC
• A fuel totalizer in every plane, to help reduce that most preventable of pilot errors: running out of gas in an otherwise perfectly running airplane

Such changes would go a long way to helping save lives, reduce property damage and reduce fatalities in the air and on the ground.

Why aren’t more light aircraft built with Rajay-type turbochargers? They provide just enough extra manifold pressure to allow 65-75% power at the 2500 to 9500 feet we typically fly our light airplanes? Continental, Lycoming and the rest continue to sell flat opposed engine technology dating back before the second world war. Just for a moment, imagine what could happen to the unit cost of these engines if they were built by bigger companies like GM or Ford or Chrysler or Toyota with deeper pockets than current engine makers will ever have? They could drop by 20-40%, maybe more.

Why do light airplanes need opulent leather interiors which reduce useful load and utility, just to make our backs and fannies a bit more comfortable on long trips? Wouldn't it be better to use some of that weight savings for better sound-proofing, an extra attitude indicator, maybe a basic autopilot or more fuel capacity?

And what responsible government stands idly by while the availability of avgas in America post 2020 remains uncertain?

The sky is falling and we can't get up!

Douglas McIntyre
Surrey, BC

Sid's picture

Here is the answer!
Send METAR's out in plain english, and if you want it in gibberish you can ask for it.
It is just plain stupid to put weather information out in code, when the number one cause of accidents in planes is weather.
Sid

cfiisparks's picture

I've got to disagree with comments saying that you can read a "plain english"
metar just as quickly; literally just at a glance, I can get a mental picture of
a wx situation looking at a coded metar as opposed to wading through a
bunch of verbage.

Ladonne's picture

What a patently ABSURD article!

The fact that weather is still disseminated in teletype format illustrates just how in the stone age we, the flying community, handcuffed by the "speed of a glacier and force of a shadow" FAA are.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use