| Msg ID: 2867062 |
Why? +3/-4
|
| Author:Itchy
6/30/2026 12:23:22 AM |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867063 |
What time was the RADAR image? (NT) +2/-1
|
| Author:Anonymous
6/30/2026 12:36:19 AM Reply to: 2867062 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867083 |
And, you sound like a novice pilot who doesn't understand +0/-2
|
| Author:but I think I do
6/30/2026 11:34:57 AM Reply to: 2867081 |
red is bad, yellow can be bad, green means go and radar is not capitalized amirite |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867084 |
What was the TIME that RADAR image generated?? +2/-1
|
| Author:Simple question!
6/30/2026 11:45:45 AM Reply to: 2867083 |
You don't seem to have an understand the concept of latency, if you can't tell me the time the last RADAR image was taken compared to the current time of the screen capture you provided. |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867094 |
Funny, FAA* and NOAA* and AOPA* and NWS* +1/-2
|
| Author:and even Foreflight all discuss RADAR latency in detail
6/30/2026 2:49:37 PM Reply to: 2867085 |
Seems like a lot of effort to not discuss a concept. You asked "why" at the top of this thread. You can't answer the question as to when the RADAR image you based the "why" on was real time, or some 15 minute old latent image. * not Faa, Noaa, Aopa, Nws even though they are all refer to acronyms used as common nouns. I don't mind you writing them upper or lower case, since it is your preference to do it either way. |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867096 |
Funny, FAA* and NOAA* and AOPA* and NWS* +2/-2
|
| Author:no
6/30/2026 3:09:55 PM Reply to: 2867094 |
those are not nouns, those are acronyms. radar is a noun and has been for 50 years |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867098 |
The FBI is not a noun? +2/-1
|
| Author:Cambridge Dictionary says otherwise!
6/30/2026 3:50:54 PM Reply to: 2867096 |
https://dic Meanwhile, what time was that NEXRAD RADAR image generated? |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867095 |
Check out the NTSB's Safety Bulletin on RADAR latency +2/-1
|
| Author:(not the Ntsb)
6/30/2026 3:02:34 PM Reply to: 2867085 |
https://www.ntsb.gov/advocacy/safety-alerts/Documents/SA-017.pdf |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867111 |
What time was the RADAR image? +0/-3
|
| Author:No...
7/1/2026 6:34:56 AM Reply to: 2867067 |
Radio Detection And Ranging RADAR |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867072 |
Leeeeerroooooooooyyyyyyy (NT) +2/-2
|
| Author:Jeeeenkins
6/30/2026 10:19:49 AM Reply to: 2867062 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867093 |
Why? +3/-2
|
| Author:ATFQ
6/30/2026 1:59:15 PM Reply to: 2867062 |
Foreflight tends to show radar as worse than encountered in flight compared to other products (NWS, Schneider etc.) There may also be a time lag where the precipitation is not exactly as depicted, info is a few minutes old. So there might be a reasonable explanation, though caution is prudent in this situation. Sorry to discuss safety and airmanship instead important JH issues such as acronyms and capitalization. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867100 |
Why? +2/-2
|
| Author:Agreed...
6/30/2026 5:40:30 PM Reply to: 2867093 |
The contrast is adjustable and a pilot can look at the same graphic with multiple products and have different intensity conclusions. This is well known and why taking a look at a graphical and thinking it's good to go may not be the wisest move. Textual, current, forecast, trending, and WA, WS, WST are all included in the mix. Get it all before you takeoff and update the evaluation in flight. |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2867119 |
Why? +2/-1
|
| Author:Been there, Done that.
7/1/2026 10:49:25 AM Reply to: 2867062 |
I have flown in situations like depicted above where the weather had moved through or diminished. Radar lag is real. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
