Narrative:

I have never much cared for the synthetic voice that delivers ATIS at so many airports these days. Often referred to as 'robo-man' or 'mega-tron,' 'he' delivers to us information 'okker' or 'whikkee' in a chopped and disjointed monotone only his mother could love. Twice, over the past yr or so, I've dialed in an incorrect altimeter setting after misinterpreting 'his' broken english. Luckily, both times were when local field conditions were VMC. Additionally, I find myself often listening to an ATIS broadcast 4 or 5 times to make sure I correctly interpret what 'he' is saying. Today, though, I encountered a situation that was only mildly disconcerting but could easily have led to a violation and/or a dangerous situation. We knew the WX at our destination, sjc, was IMC (forecast was 5 broken). The first officer listened to the ATIS broadcast 2 or 3 times and wrote this down: sjc 260/4 5hfw1 10/6 29.99 ILS 30L. We flew an hgs CAT 1 approach. We anticipated a low ceiling but good visibility once we broke out (I was not worried about the 100 ft indefinite ceiling as those on approach in front of us had no trouble getting in). On the approach, at approximately 300 ft AGL, the approach lights started to become visible. Surprisingly though, the approach lights (and eventually the runway environment) remained only marginally visible as I completed the approach and landing. It turns out the actual WX was not '5 haze fog indefinite ceiling 100 ft' but '5/8 fog indefinite ceiling 100 ft.' in this case the mistake only proved to be disconcerting, but what if the published minimums were 3/4 mi or greater and we had flown the approach and landed? (Minimums are 1/2 mi on runway 30L in sjc.) at best it would be a violation and at worst dangerous. It's been an interesting experiment but, for those of us that don't have ACARS, please bring back real human voices to the taped ATIS broadcast process. While the idiosyncrasies of the synthetic voice has been good for an occasional laugh it's time to admit that it is a failure when the measuring stick is not humor but efficiency and safety. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he would like to see a human voice replace the automated one. He never had a problem with knowing an altimeter setting in his flying career prior to the automated ATIS. He has had two incorrect altimeter settings since dealing with the automated ATIS. It is very distressing to be on descent, getting very busy in the cockpit and have to listen to the ATIS 4-6 times and still get the information wrong. Reporter has written a report to the chief pilot and to the company safety officer.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF MLG COMPLAINS ABOUT THE QUALITY AND READABILITY OF THE AUTOMATED ATIS VOICE. ACTUAL CONDITION WAS FIVE EIGHTHS, FOG INDEFINITE CEILING. WHAT CAME ACROSS ON ATIS WAS 5 HAZE AND FOG.

Narrative: I HAVE NEVER MUCH CARED FOR THE SYNTHETIC VOICE THAT DELIVERS ATIS AT SO MANY ARPTS THESE DAYS. OFTEN REFERRED TO AS 'ROBO-MAN' OR 'MEGA-TRON,' 'HE' DELIVERS TO US INFO 'OKKER' OR 'WHIKKEE' IN A CHOPPED AND DISJOINTED MONOTONE ONLY HIS MOTHER COULD LOVE. TWICE, OVER THE PAST YR OR SO, I'VE DIALED IN AN INCORRECT ALTIMETER SETTING AFTER MISINTERPRETING 'HIS' BROKEN ENGLISH. LUCKILY, BOTH TIMES WERE WHEN LCL FIELD CONDITIONS WERE VMC. ADDITIONALLY, I FIND MYSELF OFTEN LISTENING TO AN ATIS BROADCAST 4 OR 5 TIMES TO MAKE SURE I CORRECTLY INTERPRET WHAT 'HE' IS SAYING. TODAY, THOUGH, I ENCOUNTERED A SIT THAT WAS ONLY MILDLY DISCONCERTING BUT COULD EASILY HAVE LED TO A VIOLATION AND/OR A DANGEROUS SIT. WE KNEW THE WX AT OUR DEST, SJC, WAS IMC (FORECAST WAS 5 BROKEN). THE FO LISTENED TO THE ATIS BROADCAST 2 OR 3 TIMES AND WROTE THIS DOWN: SJC 260/4 5HFW1 10/6 29.99 ILS 30L. WE FLEW AN HGS CAT 1 APCH. WE ANTICIPATED A LOW CEILING BUT GOOD VISIBILITY ONCE WE BROKE OUT (I WAS NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE 100 FT INDEFINITE CEILING AS THOSE ON APCH IN FRONT OF US HAD NO TROUBLE GETTING IN). ON THE APCH, AT APPROX 300 FT AGL, THE APCH LIGHTS STARTED TO BECOME VISIBLE. SURPRISINGLY THOUGH, THE APCH LIGHTS (AND EVENTUALLY THE RWY ENVIRONMENT) REMAINED ONLY MARGINALLY VISIBLE AS I COMPLETED THE APCH AND LNDG. IT TURNS OUT THE ACTUAL WX WAS NOT '5 HAZE FOG INDEFINITE CEILING 100 FT' BUT '5/8 FOG INDEFINITE CEILING 100 FT.' IN THIS CASE THE MISTAKE ONLY PROVED TO BE DISCONCERTING, BUT WHAT IF THE PUBLISHED MINIMUMS WERE 3/4 MI OR GREATER AND WE HAD FLOWN THE APCH AND LANDED? (MINIMUMS ARE 1/2 MI ON RWY 30L IN SJC.) AT BEST IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION AND AT WORST DANGEROUS. IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING EXPERIMENT BUT, FOR THOSE OF US THAT DON'T HAVE ACARS, PLEASE BRING BACK REAL HUMAN VOICES TO THE TAPED ATIS BROADCAST PROCESS. WHILE THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF THE SYNTHETIC VOICE HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AN OCCASIONAL LAUGH IT'S TIME TO ADMIT THAT IT IS A FAILURE WHEN THE MEASURING STICK IS NOT HUMOR BUT EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A HUMAN VOICE REPLACE THE AUTOMATED ONE. HE NEVER HAD A PROB WITH KNOWING AN ALTIMETER SETTING IN HIS FLYING CAREER PRIOR TO THE AUTOMATED ATIS. HE HAS HAD TWO INCORRECT ALTIMETER SETTINGS SINCE DEALING WITH THE AUTOMATED ATIS. IT IS VERY DISTRESSING TO BE ON DSCNT, GETTING VERY BUSY IN THE COCKPIT AND HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE ATIS 4-6 TIMES AND STILL GET THE INFO WRONG. RPTR HAS WRITTEN A RPT TO THE CHIEF PLT AND TO THE COMPANY SAFETY OFFICER.

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.