Patrick wrote:
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.
First things first, a few days in advance I’d start looking at the Meteogram → Europe and select a few stations near where you will be flying. Look at the expected visibility and cloud coverage. Usually, you can tell 2 – 3 days ahead whether the flight will be a go / no go. On the morning of the flight, I’d then plot the METARS and TAFs for the route and review them. Finally, just before takeoff I’d update the GAFOR on Sky Map which uses DWD data from my subscription. This, for example, shows me the routes through the Alps and whether they can be flown VFR…….
For beating his wife?
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….
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 
