Originally Posted by
cuthere
Ah Herman:
If only the Met Office knew that all they had to do to deflect criticism was to to pretty up their charts and make them look more detailed......regardless of accuracy, and regardless of the ICAO/WMO/CAA stipulations of what they, as a VAAC, have to produce.
As an aside the Norwegian Met Service has nowhere near the computational power of the Met Office, so just because they have spangly charts doesn't mean they're better, though if that's all it takes to placate you, then I do worry.
cuthere, I'm quite well aware that the models have a significant degree of inaccuracy. And I wasn't suggesting that the Norwegian model is necessarily more accurate. It's more the fact that by provding something more than a big red blob, passengers, pilots and airlines can get a better idea of whether the 4mg liimit is close to, let's say, the 50 mg limit or whether that sort of much higher limit would provide much better flexibility (and on a personal note would avoided me being stuck in Helsinki at the moment - long story)...
If you or anyone else can give us the full story on how and why the 4 mg limit is as it is then I'm all ears. However, I will add that even a 50 mg limit would still be 40 times less than the 2g estimate for the KLM Redoubt incident.
Thoughts?