Modern technology has produced numerous applications that present weather forecasts and data for smartphones and tablets. At first glance, these apps present pilots with more sources of data on which to base decisions.
But there’s a catch: the information behind these apps is not aviation-grade. This can lure pilots into making unsafe decisions if the forecast seems more benign than the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) forecast. As well, despite the appearance of more information displayed in better ways, apps have introduced a facade of certainty to an uncertain science.
The problem is the interfaces used to present the data can create the impression that apps are better than the official aviation forecast delivered through the National Aeronautical Information Processing System (NAIPS), leading a pilot to make a misinformed decision on the safety of the weather ahead.
How they work
Third-party weather apps generally source their data from non-aviation grade sources. These are forecast models such as the European centre for medium-range weather forecasts and the BOM’s Australian community climate and earth-system simulator. The data is displayed graphically without the need for decoding.
In 2016, the Royal Meteorological Society in the UK published a paper by the Italian Institute of Biometeorology National Research Centre that studied 39 weather apps, examining the way the data was presented and interpreted.
The conclusions sound an ominous warning for aviators who have come to rely on non-aviation weather apps – the expectations created around weather forecasts are greater than current forecasting capabilities.
Pitfalls
Non-aviation weather apps can suffer from the following shortcomings:
- public weather language is different from aviation weather language, leading to misinterpretation
- weather radar returns become less accurate the further away you are from the radar
- icons and graphs can lead to an impression of certainty
- weather camera images may not portray current conditions
- some apps can have long processing times, meaning the data is not necessarily the most current available
- people become loyal to specific apps and are reticent to question the data when it conflicts with official sources.
Read the UK Royal Meteorological Society research on mobile weather apps.
EFB delivery
Bevan Anderson says his AvPlan app delivers weather information including the BOM forecast sourced from NAIPS, a radar overlay, strikefinder (for lightning) and winds aloft forecast.
He says his sources are carefully selected. ‘Weather radar data comes from the BOM, via a third-party data supplier, and then is available to view in the various mobile apps,’ he says. ‘The processing delay here is about 2–5 minutes.
‘For Australia, we get low-level grid point winds which are generated by the BOM and supplied via Airservices Australia through the NAIPS platform.
‘Upper-level winds we source via the UK MetService. NOAA [National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration] and UK MetService run the global winds aloft model for all aviation use above FL140.
‘These sources are aviation‑grade with the appropriate level of quality assurance applied.’
Provided the data is aviation-grade, pilots have reliable data to make safer decisions than if they relied on non-aviation apps alone, which are not developed with the understanding that people will make safety-of-life decisions on the data presented.
Go to the source
One area where certainty is too often applied by pilots is navigating through weather by using the BOM radar overlay on an EFB, that is, using the depiction of rain to find a way through poor weather. It could be one of the most unsafe uses of the technology.
‘Processing delays and data availability in the cockpit mean a pilot should never rely on the radar image on their EFB for tactical weather avoidance,’ Anderson says. ‘Onboard equipment such as weather radar and strikefinders are a more appropriate tactical weather avoidance tool.
‘Our advice is to be aware of what data you are using for flight planning and execution, its applicability for aviation use and then treat the data appropriately. Use situational awareness products as useful tools, but ensure that the required, certified data sources are used for final decision-making for flight planning and in-flight execution.’
Sally Scott is the head of operations at North Queensland Aero Club, based in a region of Australia where weather can change dramatically. She believes pilots need to stick with NAIPS as their primary source of information.
‘The advice we offer our students is of course to only use the Airservices/NAIPS-provided METAR/TAF/GPWT/GAF services for all flight planning,’ she says.
‘However, we do tend to crosscheck the winds aloft on the GPWT with apps like Windy, especially during winter when we tend to have strong winds aloft and at ground level.
‘We use the webcams in the area that are on these types of apps also; however, the date and time must be crosschecked to confirm the images are the latest. ‘There is so much information out there nowadays, that sometimes, if you’re just doing a local flight, getting your head out of the iPad and going outside to look at the actual local weather is the best option. Eyes outside!’
Weather and forecasting and flight planning are special topics on our Pilot safety hub. Refresh your knowledge at casa.gov.au/pilots.
