In your situation I would invest in a Meteobridge Nano. So much more you can then do with your station, not just adding Windy.
But there are other equally interesting options like running Weather-Display, Cumulus MX, or WeeWx which would all also give you a lot more not just Windy.
You have a lot of options to consider. You don't even need to be limited to just one of these options.
@idefix37 thanks for you answer. I'd love to have geopotential height isohypses on Android app, or geopotential height layer at 500 hPa. I hope developers will consider to include this in future versions!
@sillykim said in Criteria for Aviation Weather Hazard (Avoid vs. Go through?):
have heard that a pilot may have to re-route his/her trajectories if weather hazards (e.g. icing, convective, volcanic ash, and turbulent) are showing up to the original planned trajectory. In the meantime, I have also heard that the pilot may not avoid the weather hazards but go though them because he/she is able to do it. I am wondering what is the criteria for him/her to make the decision? For example, what makes him/her to go through or to avoid the weather hazard? I am guessing that the pilot has to avoid severe convective; however, it's fine to go through them if visibility is guaranteed
This is not really the place to get an answer like that but the correct (and compliant) answer will reside within the “Aeronautical Information Publication”, or “AIP” document for your respective country (sometimes it's called an Airman's Information Manual, or 'AIM') which can usually be found at the website of your national civil air services agency, i.e. the agency in your country you would lodge a flight plan with.
For instance in Australia’s case this would be the answer:
And with respect to pilot observational requirements and equipment it says this:
The reference to "Gen 3.3 Section 2.13" given above just states this:
Source: Aeronautical Information Publication Australia – AIP - Airservices Australia
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/
MeteoSwizz provide precipitation forecasts which give the same kind of image (resolution, time step, colours) as the radar observations. This is possible because they use a high resolution model COSMO 1km.
https://www.meteoswiss.admin.ch/home.html?tab=rain
(Click on the arrow for play)
But this type of weather model is not available everywhere.
Btw MeteoSwizz don’t call it « future radar »
@sonnigekerstin
These colours are explained at left of the Meteogram.
Deep blue is rain
Pink is convective rain
Light blue is snow.
More information about precipitation types:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_types
Quantity figures are also shown with the same colours.
Each forecast quantity corresponds to a probability and the total amount may be a mix of different precipitation types.
In the example here above, at 18h the rainfall is mainly convective type.
From 21h the temperature drops and it becomes a mix of rain and snow.
At 0h it turns to snow.
Symbols in top line show precipitation types too - rain and lightning - rain and snow - snow.
