[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.