[tomiles]

Why when internet is becoming available in planes is something as simple and and essential as updated weather reports not possible during a flight?

Why are these practices seemingly stuck in a stone age of paper weather reports, printed before the flight leaves, that could have been outdated even before the planes takes off.

Maybe this accident will speed up a much needed needed technological update in this aspect of air-travel. We should stop wasting dollars on security theater measures and invest it in real safety measures that can save lives.

[JimmyL]

They get weather updates en-route sent to them by their home airline (via the radio system) - not to mention that jets of that size carry along with them a better weather radar system than most local news channels have.

[tomiles]

I'm talking about satellite imagery like it is shown in the article, which is the only kind that would provide reliable and usable info for storm evasion. You need a view from above to see a storm size and not just a surface look at it from the sides (with a radar). Weather radar only provides limited information, like the article says.

"interpreting its display is a bit of a black art." - "It is akin to a blind man with a cane;" - "For instance, the radar mostly detects rain and hail – and if that first layer of storm cells was particularly heavy, it might have acted like a curtain – hiding the reinforcements from radar beams."

You can't know what's inside a walled garden or know how big it is just by looking at one side of the outside walls, you need something that allows a top view.

[dpifke]

More raw data to the cockpit is unlikely to help. Pilots have a lot of things going on and varying levels of weather knowledge and experience (even professional pilots - weather is but one thing you train on).

A professional meteorologist on the ground who can interpret and summarize the relevant information is of way more use.

[tomiles]

I agree that it's also useful but this is not black and white. It's not one ore the other, it should be both. Because when your flying into a storm front in the middle of the atlantic you are on your own and it's not that interpreting a satellite picture is a black art like radar. Besides that's why there are 2 of them in the cockpit. If a pilot can't handle that he shouldn't be flying a plane. It's like saying we shouldn't invest in new CT machines or other better medical imagery, doctors have more than enough data to handle.

[vinutheraj]

Er .. why should the pilot interpret it, can't we have a specialist inside the cockpit to interpret the meteorological data ?!

[tomiles]

because you can't fit in the extra guy in all cockpits :-) Would be unpractical and expensive to put a 3rd person there just for weather. Good updated meteo from the specialists on the ground, and basic training in and availability of satellite images in the plane.

Like it's said you might loose contact with any ground station when flying in the middle of nowhere or you might lose imaging data of the storm. So both should be there to provide a better standard than the current limited info of printed weather maps in preflight briefings, especially for long flights.