Does not show wind components at the Vnukovo(UUWW)

Hello! I noticed that at Vnukovo(UUWW) airport it does not show wind components, at other airports it works fine.


Hi! Thanks for the feedback.

In this case, the original (real-world) METAR report is invalid and it therefore failed to parse within our systems. This is why there is no additional data, just the raw report itself!

The invalid part of this report is the RVR. For some reason it contains six digits after the runway designator, very likely human error.

Kind Regards,
Malte

UUWW 140630Z 15002MPS CAVOK 15/10 Q1021 R06/000070 NOSIG

Are you talking about this part R06/000070? But this is not RVR, this is runway conditions and stand for- Runway condition RWY 06: Clear and dry, deposit is less than 1mm deep, friction coefficient 0.7

RVR is indicated after the visibility value, for example: METAR UWWW 130330Z 08003MPS 0150 R15/0300N FG VV001 12/11 Q1021 R15/CLRD60 NOSIG RMK QBB050 QFE754/1005
where visibility is 150m, RVR 300m and there is also the runway condition RWY 15: Clear and dry, friction coefficient 0.6
But when the runway is clean and dry, this can be indicated in letter form.
If the runway is not dry, it is indicated in numbers, for example: METAR UUWW 021600Z 28004MPS 9000 -RA BKN004 OVC020 16/15 Q1018 R24/290150 NOSIG
Runway condition RWY 24: Wet or water patches, contamination from 51% to 100%, deposit is 1 mm deep, friction coefficient 0.5

I see! That is my mistake, I thought those values had been moved to SNOWTAM but it seems like it is still included like this in Russia (and some states)! That’s on me.

However, it is still invalid which is why the parser is not able to read this runway report.
You have already shown that you can read this format really well, so to keep it simple: the extent of the deposits (the “coverage”) cannot be 0 according to the specification.

This means that changing the second zero after the runway designator to one (R06/000070 to R06/010070) would make this report valid! The other reports that you sent are valid, and I have verified that they do parse successfully.

The reason why this throws the parser off is that it is doing pattern matching to find and parse the correct information. In this case, the runway report in the screenshots does not match the pattern for a runway report according to the specification!

Is this (all zeroes instead of CLRD) a common occurrence in Russia?

Kind Regards,
Malte

It seems that only Vnukovo(UUWW) uses all zeros, other airports provide data more correctly. For some reason, when the runway is dry, they put all zeros and nothing can be done about it?

Hmmm. Adding an exception from the international standard for one airport seems a bit strange to me, but I can see what we can do!