Silvaire wrote:
My initial reaction to this thread was to question whether I was missing some subtlety in the topic, because I can hardly remember a time when I didn’t get aviation weather data quickly on my phone or tablet as a routine part of preparing for a flight. The only subtlety that was apparent is that it needs to be “free”, the definition of which is I guess open to interpretation: entirely free, or free because its bundled with something else you use and need anyway are two different versions of ‘free’.
Yes, you missed the point. The point was that the app provided METAR/TAF-like information for every airport – even those without a regular METAR or TAF.
To be honest, I could have been a bit more explicit in my post, but I did expect people to check the links before commenting. Otherwise, what is there to comment on?
Airborne_Again wrote:
What do you make of this? A Dutch company has launched a web site where they free of charge publish their own airport weather reports (nowcasts, really) and forecasts in METAR and TAF format.
In my opinion, forecasts should be clearly differentiated from airport observations, and adding an AW prefix to METAR may be misleading and potentially a safety concern.
Silvaire wrote:
I just timed myself and it takes me 20 seconds on Foreflight to get the METAR or TAF for any airport worldwide on Foreflight, including pulling the phone from my pocket.
That could likely be halved using the autorouter bot on Telegram. “wx” and “near” commands. If you know the airports in advance, a watch face will be quickest. I use the StationWX face.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Do they have sensors? Where are those data coming from? Wind, QNH, TT/TdTd? Those are usually hard mesured data.
My understanding is that these are “nowcasts” from a numerical model; “nowcast” vs “forecast” means:
This is certainly interesting and can be useful, but then one has to understand it is not an observation but a numerical model prediction. The accuracy will indeed be good only if it integrates extremely local topographical / micro-climate information. Else it will not see the (often major) difference between EHTE and EHDL, or the difference between 50m visibility a 3 nmi north-west of ELLX vs CAVOK at the airport.
lionel wrote:
My understanding is that these are “nowcasts” from a numerical model
Yes. (That was actually in my first post.)
I’ve compared a number of “nowcast” for my home field ESKC with the actual METAR for ESCM, which is 4 km away. The local topography is the same so the weather is essentially identical, as long as there are no showers or TCU. Wind, temperature and QNH are very close or the same. Clouds differ a lot. There has so far not been any visibility less than 10 km.
Yes, you missed the point. The point was that the app provided METAR/TAF-like information for every airport – even those without a regular METAR or TAF.
No, I didn’t miss your point and as I showed by using ESKC airport as an example, FF (and I’m guessing other similar apps) provides the same thing using the ’Daily’ tab under Weather. I’ve found that data useful for a long time, usually more so than official METAR/TAF/AWOS data for nearby airports. This is particularly true in my area because we have ‘microclimates’, meaning airports close to each other may have quite different weather.
loco wrote:
forecasts should be clearly differentiated from airport observations, and adding an AW prefix to METAR may be misleading and potentially a safety concern.
I agree. METAR and TAF are protected formats and should not be used unless valid. At the very least they should clearly be marked “not for operation”.
lionel wrote:
My understanding is that these are “nowcasts” from a numerical model;
Nowcasting out of model data is not usually done, particularly in aviation.
lionel wrote:
This is certainly interesting and can be useful, but then one has to understand it is not an observation but a numerical model prediction.
Then the product should be put into this kind of context, which imho precludes the use of the METAR/TAF ident. Apart, TAFs are forecasts.
If they would simply put their prediction into a readable form and show it, with a nice disclaimer below it, it would indeed be interesting.
As for using METAR and TAF designators, they have to be careful. This can cause some very unpleasant legal stuff if the wrong agency stumbles about this site and might take action.
