Narrative:

The WX being reported by the navy at nmm is contrary to the metar procedures. When the tower visibility is reported, it is always put in the remarks section regardless of what it is, this is incorrect. Metar says 'if tower or surface visibility is less than four statute miles, the lesser of the two will be reported in the body of the report, the greater will be reported in the remarks.' in may this came to light when the tower visibility was reported as 2 1/2, the body of the WX report showed 4 SM and in the remarks tower visibility 2 1/2. For one hour I read the WX to aircraft and ran traffic to the field as if it were VFR and in reality the field was IFR. This would not have happened if the tower visibility had been reported correctly. If the navy is going to report the WX that the FAA/ratcf is going to use, should it not comply with metar standards? I thought metar was going to standardize the way WX is reported nation wide. I consider this to be a safety issue. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter relayed that the described problem has occurred a couple of times since the ASRS report was submitted. He expressed continued frustration that the navy would not comply with metar standards and that the situation continued to cause confusion with the FAA controller's in his facility. The reporter relayed, that when confronted, the navy claims they are following a navy regulation with regard to visibility. The reporter contends that he is a recent military controller from the USAF and that metar is the military standard.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR AT NMM RADAR AIR TFC CTL FAC EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION REGARDING MIL CTLR'S NON COMPLIANCE WITH METAR STANDARDS.

Narrative: THE WX BEING RPTED BY THE NAVY AT NMM IS CONTRARY TO THE METAR PROCS. WHEN THE TWR VIS IS RPTED, IT IS ALWAYS PUT IN THE REMARKS SECTION REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS, THIS IS INCORRECT. METAR SAYS 'IF TWR OR SURFACE VIS IS LESS THAN FOUR STATUTE MILES, THE LESSER OF THE TWO WILL BE RPTED IN THE BODY OF THE RPT, THE GREATER WILL BE RPTED IN THE REMARKS.' IN MAY THIS CAME TO LIGHT WHEN THE TWR VIS WAS RPTED AS 2 1/2, THE BODY OF THE WX RPT SHOWED 4 SM AND IN THE REMARKS TWR VIS 2 1/2. FOR ONE HOUR I READ THE WX TO ACFT AND RAN TFC TO THE FIELD AS IF IT WERE VFR AND IN REALITY THE FIELD WAS IFR. THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF THE TWR VIS HAD BEEN RPTED CORRECTLY. IF THE NAVY IS GOING TO RPT THE WX THAT THE FAA/RATCF IS GOING TO USE, SHOULD IT NOT COMPLY WITH METAR STANDARDS? I THOUGHT METAR WAS GOING TO STANDARDIZE THE WAY WX IS RPTED NATION WIDE. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A SAFETY ISSUE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR RELAYED THAT THE DESCRIBED PROB HAS OCCURRED A COUPLE OF TIMES SINCE THE ASRS RPT WAS SUBMITTED. HE EXPRESSED CONTINUED FRUSTRATION THAT THE NAVY WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH METAR STANDARDS AND THAT THE SIT CONTINUED TO CAUSE CONFUSION WITH THE FAA CTLR'S IN HIS FAC. THE RPTR RELAYED, THAT WHEN CONFRONTED, THE NAVY CLAIMS THEY ARE FOLLOWING A NAVY REGULATION WITH REGARD TO VIS. THE RPTR CONTENDS THAT HE IS A RECENT MILITARY CTLR FROM THE USAF AND THAT METAR IS THE MILITARY STANDARD.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.