mh wrote:
Yes, but that is future law, and doesn’t depict the current situation.
Correct.
Plus, §4 is already valid and thus there is a free basic service provided.
No, § 4 defines the scope of their services (it’s titled “Aufgaben”), whereas § 6 defines the charges (“Gebühren”). § 4 only gets slightly amended, whereas § 6 would be basically turned on its head by this proposed law.
My guess is, that they won’t (can’t, aren’t allowed to) make all products free for charge.
Currently not, but if that law passes, they’ll be obliged to. Just read the proposal that I linked to, it is actually well written, well commented, clearly readable and concise (the complete opposite of any EU rulemaking process). You just need to scroll down a bit below the general introductory stuff.
The only question is if that proposal will become law, since the lobby groups are howling loudly about unfair competition and how this would be unconstitutional.
You can get along just with free weather data already. For instance if you take a look at www.wetterzentrale.de where some of the DWD data is presented, too.
I would say that is no comparison to the information that you can get at flugwetter.de and topmeteo.eu (my favorite aviation weather service).
Airborne_Again wrote:
The MET briefing service was on a premium number and there was simply no way to put in coins quickly enough to keep up with the phone charges so the briefing service was impossible to use.
I had a similar experience in Germany a few years ago, when I wanted to fly back south from Bremerhaven ahead of an approaching front from the west. I called from a prepaid SIM card that would use to top itself off by 10 Euros whenever the balance would fall below 4 Euros, so at maximum I had 14 Euros available. The first briefer that I called (who was in the western part) had just started out by saying “I don’t think you’ll be able to make that flight today” when the line got cut off. I called again after the automatic top-off, and the second one in Berlin was more optimistic and advised me to fly south-eastwards, just a bit VFR over the top, and then we could make it. Since that was actually my original plan I was happy with that advice and it did work out beautifully.
MedEwok wrote:
And I guess I am still much too new to aviation to accept that something is “cheap” if it costs hundreds of euros. I still have not quite figured out why I pay the same price for flying a plane for one hour as I do for filling the tank of my VW Golf VI three times. The Golf also carries about five times as much payload (with ease), can go as fast as the aircraft’s cruise speed (180 km/h or 100 kts) on an unrestricted Autobahn and takes me 2000 km far away for the same price as 180 km in an aircraft. And all that despite the aircraft using more or less the same (actually an inferior variant) of internal combustion engine as the Golf. Strange hobby I chose, I sometimes wonder about myself
Don’t wonder, just enjoy the view 
That’s what gets me, every time I climb out of the circuit – I look down and enjoy being the master of all I survey – until I get the bill, that is 
Steve6443 wrote:
What makes it worthwhile is that it gives me details across Europe, when flying in UK I can usually get a better overview using this subscription than with the Met Office GA Briefings, paid or otherwise…
Interesting – @Steve6443 how do you effectively use DWD on flights outside of Germany and the alps (as Alpenflugwetter is indeed included)?
I found that on my international flights, I wasn’t happy with the level of detail I could find on DWD. Last year, I began using paid short term subscriptions for topmeteo when flying abroad.
Yesterday I passed up the chance of this:
to fly this:
The clouds turned out pretty well “as advertised”, except for the predicted CAVOK north of Reims. The TCU showers were avoidable and apart from dodging buzzards in the hills either side of the Rhine it was mostly on a/p.
The aeroplane is equipped for “summer IMC” (no de-icing), is capable of landing more or less anywhere, but does not like headwind. That, and the active R45N2 Ardennes and R45N3 Luxembourg AZBA zones, influenced the decision to fly below cloud and enjoy some pretty countryside.
JasonC wrote:
DWD don’t really do weather prediction at least in the broader regional context. They use the same computer models as everyone else.
Some, but the model stuff they use for European forecasts is a darn sight more advanced than the GME/GFS data most “free” providers use.
That is one bit which has been bugging me for a while. There are really good models around these days, there are millions of euros put into them every year to make them better, yet a lot of aviators and aviation websites who do super products will have to use the American GFS/GME Products because they can’t afford to buy the hefty fees needed to get access to the European models.
At work I have access to both and when it comes to hard decisions for go/no go, I am more than happy to take advantage of the more advanced European models, particularly when we are talking about alpine flying. The GFS resolution is simply not up to that nor was it designed to be, it is a very good world wide model, which however can’t take care of the many local irregularities we spend so much money for educating the local models to deal with them correctly.
Peter wrote:
The general rule, VFR or IFR, is to not cancel until the morning of the flight.
I think generally this is true because the weather (particularly in NW Europe and the British Isles) is very hard to forecast. Even on the morning of the flight, you might end up making the wrong decision: this Sunday we canceled glider flying because the forecast showed that heavy rain would arrive by 11.30 am, and the weather radar confirmed it was on the way – but it just evaporated before reaching us, meaning we passed up a perfectly good flying day.
It was much easier when I was living in Texas, the weather was much more predictable there. I could have a good idea on what chances I would have of flying three days from now. Here, it’s even difficult to tell 12 hours before the planned departure.
Jacko wrote:
The aeroplane is equipped for “summer IMC” (no de-icing), is capable of landing more or less anywhere, but does not like headwind.
I think you will find it was the pilot who didn’t like the headwind. The aircraft doesn’t care.
Yes, the driver’s not at all fond of headwinds, but what I meant was that the journey time of a Maule is more susceptible to wind than the average EuroGA rocket-ship. Even so, on this particular 1,450 nautical mile round trip I beat Mrs J (flying KLM) door-to-door by more than an hour both ways.
Talking of the GRAMET’s limitations though, I played a hunch on my way NNW through the Lake District and found a “funnel” between fells which turned a general 15 knot south-westerly airflow into a nice, but bumpy, 25-30 knot tailwind. Also not shown on the GRAMET, I scored a 20-40 knot tailwind at FL60 to FL80 on the way out over Belgium and Germany, while smoke and wind turbines were showing a 180 degree opposing wind at ground level.
Jacko wrote:
Even so, on this particular 1,450 nautical mile round trip I beat Mrs J (flying KLM) door-to-door by more than an hour both ways.
I salute you sir….
