Weather Information (ATP)

What changes is who decides and against what limits — the products themselves don't. METAR/SPECI, TAF, GFA, FB, AIRMETs, SIGMETs, and Convective SIGMETs (AA.I.C.K2) are the same ones covered card-by-card in the Instrument and Commercial guides. The same is true of the meteorology core in K3 — atmospheric stability, wind and windshear, temperature, moisture, air masses and fronts, clouds, thunderstorms and microbursts, fog, and frost (AA.I.C.K3a–f, h, j, k) are all built in those guides, and the ACS note warns that if K3 is selected the evaluator must assess at least three sub-elements — so refresh them there before the oral. At the ATP level:

• Joint responsibility: in domestic and flag operations, the PIC and the aircraft dispatcher share responsibility for preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release (121.533(b), 121.535(b)) — your weather analysis has a professional counterpart checking the same charts
• Flight monitoring: the dispatcher monitors each flight, issues information necessary for safety, and can cancel or redispatch when a flight cannot continue safely as released (121.533(c))
• Minima: from operator and aircraft operational limitations — ops specs — not personal preference (AA.I.C.R1d)

Expect scenario questions where the right answer includes the phrase "and I'd be on with dispatch."

The planning ladder, with all required components operative (IPH ch. 4, fig. 4-41):

• CAT I: DH 200 feet, RVR 2,400 (1,800 with touchdown zone and centerline lighting)
• CAT II: DH 100 feet, RVR 1,200
• CAT III: RVR floors fall from 700 (IIIa) to 150 (IIIb) to no DH and no RVR limitation at IIIc — which no U.S. operator has OpSpecs approval to use

The category-by-category details — including the DH-versus-Alert-Height distinction — are covered under Task VI.E. The weather-planning point this Task adds: the minimums you may plan on are not the chart's lowest line but the lowest category your OpSpecs authorize for this crew, this airframe, and the equipment working today — the trend you watch en route is measured against that number.

CAT II and III require special certification for operators, pilots, aircraft, and airborne and ground equipment — the primary authorization and minimum RVRs live in OpSpecs Part C (IPH ch. 4). Details worth volunteering:

• While CAT I permits substituting midfield RVR for an unavailable TDZ report, CAT II permits no substitution — the touchdown zone RVR system is required and controlling (IPH ch. 4)
• The surface side is regulated too: the FAA requires an approved low visibility operations/SMGCS program for new CAT III-supported runways, with the low-visibility taxi plan applying at RVR below 1,200 feet and controllable stop bars required for operations below 500 feet RVR (IPH ch. 1 and 4) — the taxi-plan details are covered under Task II.C

A structured preflight form that assigns numbers to specific risks and situations, making it easier to see when a particular flight carries a higher level of risk (PHAK ch. 2). It complements — not replaces — the continuous perceive-process-perform loop and predetermined personal minimums developed away from any pressure to fly (PHAK ch. 2). At a carrier, the FRAT's thresholds typically trigger the conversation this Task keeps pointing at: elevated score, talk to dispatch or a supervisor before the flight goes. The skill element is explicit that you should interpret the weather, apply ADM, and use a Flight Risk Assessment Tool if available (AA.I.C.S1) — so if your operator has one, walk the evaluator through its categories and what happens at each scoring band.

The margin you're protecting is aerodynamic. At cruise altitude the spread between low-speed and Mach buffet may be a couple hundred knots at FL350 but only about 26 knots at FL450 for a typical jet, and gust loading or bank can erase a 1.4 G margin entirely — so altitude selection in expected turbulence is itself a weather decision (AC 61-107, para 3-3). If a thunderstorm cannot be avoided, follow high-altitude penetration procedures and avoid over-action of the thrust levers; speed brakes can manage excessive airspeed buildup, with the caveat that when they're part of the lateral control system, deploying them may change the roll rate with lateral input (AC 61-107, para 3-3). The full coffin-corner story is Task I.D.

Three channels, each worth naming:

• SIGMETs (WS) — the non-convective advisories that cover volcanic ash, along with severe icing not associated with thunderstorms, severe or extreme turbulence or CAT, and dust storms or sandstorms lowering surface or inflight visibility below three miles; valid 4 hours (6 for hurricanes) (PHAK ch. 13)
• ASHTAM — the NOTAM issued for an operationally significant change in volcanic ash or other dust contamination (PHAK ch. 1)
• METAR coding — present-weather code VA for volcanic ash (PHAK ch. 13)

The operational posture for a jet crew is avoidance and routing — ash is a dispatch-level planning problem before it is ever an inflight one, which is why it appears in the ATP task rather than as a light-airplane concern.

Both of you, at every phase: no person may dispatch or release, continue en route, or land when in the opinion of the pilot in command or aircraft dispatcher (domestic and flag), icing conditions are expected or met that might adversely affect the safety of the flight (121.629(a)). Note the standard — might adversely affect — is lower than "exceeds certification." Freezing-level products and structural icing theory are covered in the Instrument guide; the ground-icing program, holdover times, and the pretakeoff contamination check are under Tasks I.B and II.A. What this Task adds is the decision architecture: either seat can stop the flight for ice, before or during.

As a planning aid with known failure modes, not ground truth — the ACS explicitly tests equipment limitations alongside use, and that is the evidence the evaluator wants. State the limits before the strategy:

• Datalink (FIS-B/NEXRAD): latency and mosaic limitations are covered in the Commercial guide's weather task and carry over unchanged — strategic, not tactical
• Installed equipment — weather radar, predictive windshear, turbulence detection: the honest oral answer is your AFM/FCOM's operating procedures and your operator's deviation SOPs — what the display actually senses and what it cannot see
• Deviation coordination: heading change agreed, PM works the ATC request, dispatch advised if the reroute is significant, per the joint-responsibility structure of 121.533

Structure the answer around the shared-responsibility machinery rather than raw stick-and-rudder judgment:

1. Re-gather — latest METAR/SPECI and trend, TAF amendments, PIREPs, and the RVR values that actually control your approach category (IPH ch. 4)
2. Compare against authorization — the minima that matter are the OpSpecs values for the approach you can fly with the equipment working right now, not the chart's lowest line (IPH ch. 4)
3. Confer — the dispatcher is monitoring the flight and holds joint responsibility; either of you can conclude the flight cannot continue safely as released, and the dispatcher can redispatch you to the alternate with amended fuel and weather analysis (121.533(c))
4. Decide with the fuel — the release was built to reach destination, most distant required alternate, plus reserve (121.639, covered under Task I.E); the moment holding erodes that plan, the decision timeline compresses

The examiner is listening for the reflex of bringing dispatch in early — silence until minimum fuel is the classic ATP-oral failure mode.

Yes — as the conservative inner ring inside the regulatory ones. The ACS keeps personal weather minimums as a risk element even for ATP applicants, and the PHAK's guidance still applies: set them in a non-flying environment, before any pressure to make a specific trip exists, so they serve as a clear reference point for go/no-go and continue/discontinue decisions (PHAK ch. 2). At a carrier they express themselves differently — as the judgment margin you apply inside OpSpecs limits: electing the autoland when you're legal to hand-fly, taking the extra fuel when the TAF's PROB30 looks generous, declining the visual at night into terrain. The strong oral answer names a specific case where your minimums are tighter than what's legal, and why.