Integrating SIGMETs in weather depiction?

[JU108 31]

Perhaps I am not up to speed, but is it known if tehy will integrate depiction of SIGMETs in the weather engine?

For example it could read from https://www.aviationweather.gov/sigmet/intl?hazard=all&loc=eur

[snglecoil 1,828]

I like the idea, the only problem is that SIGMETs and AIRMETs are outlooks for potential hazardous weather vs. actual observed weather. I think as long as the weather engine depicts actual observed conditions they should be covered pretty well. 

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

SkyVector is an excellent source of this, and many other things such as TFRs.

 

[ual763 361]

3 hours ago, snglecoil said:

I like the idea, the only problem is that SIGMETs and AIRMETs are outlooks for potential hazardous weather vs. actual observed weather. I think as long as the weather engine depicts actual observed conditions they should be covered pretty well. 

AIRMETS/SIGMETS are based off of observed/reported weather.  There are, however, Outlook AIRMETS/Convective SIGMET Outlooks which are obviously outlooks.  They’re two separate products.  

Edited February 20, 2020 by ual763

[snglecoil 1,828]

9 minutes ago, ual763 said:

AIRMETS/SIGMETS are based off of observed/reported weather.  There are, however, Outlook AIRMETS/Convective SIGMET Outlooks which are obviously outlooks.  They’re two separate products.  

You know, that is a very good point regarding active vs. outlook. I was trying to think of a practical example where observed weather wouldn't be sufficient. Thinking more about it, an active sigmet for severe turbulence or icing, especially aloft in the flight levels would be great example. And since icing is represented in the sim, that would actually be a great use of sigmet/airmet data. 

[ual763 361]

The weather service they use (MeteoBlue) has real time icing/turbulence for all flight levels.  Much more advanced than the AIRMETS/SIGMETS NWS puts out.  AIRMETS/SIGMETS are more of just an advisory than being accurate indicators of actual conditions.  I’m an FAA Certified Pilot Weather Briefer at FSS (yes, such a thing exists, haha).  A few PIREPS of high level turbulence will trigger an AIRMET for high level turbulence across a 1/3 of the US! Mostly just a formality in a briefing more than anything.  MeteoBlue is much more detailed.  I think we will be amazed with the final outcome of MSFS.  
 

There is (at least majority of the time) large differences between what is briefed and forecasted vs. what it actually is.  So, using super detailed real-time weather data (not just METARS) will simulate this as it is.  The sim will use this data the World over to accurately simulate reality.  However as pilots, we can still get our briefings on Foreflight, aviationweather.gov, etc. and see a range of advisories.  Then when we boot up the sim, we *may* see this in the area specified in our briefing, or we may not.  To me, at least, this would be super accurate and realistic, instead of immediately getting moderate turbulence when flying into a mapped AIRMET Tango, haha.

I recommend going to the MeteoBlue website to see what all is available to ASOBO in terms of weather products!  Every product can be turned into Data too, which would then be injected into sim.  Even dust particles are mapped!

[snglecoil 1,828]

27 minutes ago, ual763 said:

 I’m an FAA Certified Pilot Weather Briefer at FSS (yes, such a thing exists, haha).

Wow cool! So you guys really DO exist! I've heard tales of actual weather briefers, but I thought those where just stories...like unicorns! 😉😂

I kid! You guys do an amazing job. Although I do self brief the majority of the time, If there is any question about what I am seeing, getting confirmation from a person who actually knows what they are talking about is so valuable and very under appreciated these days.

28 minutes ago, ual763 said:

To me, at least, this would be super accurate and realistic, instead of immediately getting moderate turbulence when flying into a mapped AIRMET Tango, haha.

Honestly, that was my exact thought when I originally responded. I fly a route that often takes me through an AIRMET for mountain obscuration. Maybe 1 out of 10 times, it ends up being actual conditions. I definitely respect that it could be a possibility, but at the same time, I understand that just because it is advised, it may not be observed. 

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by snglecoil