Daniel Vélez Bravo <<danielvelezbravo>>
writes:

I've seen that you tend to use a lot of applications for reading
out the weather for a given task. I'm using XCSkies since a few years as it's
the only workable application for South America's weather forecasting.
Nevertheless, this beautiful creation (www.xcskies.com)
has an interesting feature in order to review your flight track over the last
predicted weather forecast for that flight.

I took the liberty to check out the good flights (two good flights, two poor
flights) on the last Flytec Race and Rally, against the weather forecasted by
this application, and it is quite accurate.

You could see the 108 km flight to Williston here:
http://www.xcskies.com/cgi-bin/map/reviewlog.cgi?tid=931

As you can see, we were climbing all the way to the projected climb height on
this application and only at the end I get above that inversion when we got to
the fire. The winds seems right too.

The flight to Okeechobee:
http://www.xcskies.com/cgi-bin/map/reviewlog.cgi?tid=932

XCSkies has a simple interface:
http://www.xcskies.com/cgi-bin/map/uploadlog.cgi. There you just insert your
IGC (I only copied the link from the IGC stored online on
http://xc.dhv.de server).

Two of Davis' flights from the Rob Kells Competition:

http://www.xcskies.com/cgi-bin/map/reviewlog.cgi?tid=934

http://www.xcskies.com/cgi-bin/map/reviewlog.cgi?tid=935

and my flight to Williston:
http://www.xcskies.com/cgi-bin/map/reviewlog.cgi?tid=938

Chris Gali, XCSkies owner, writes:

As of this year (January) we started archiving the raw model data
for NAM and RUC too, so this is possible to validate flights against these
models. We still need to build that interface and it should happen soon, so for
now only the one model (GFS) comparison is available. You are correct in
thinking that the current validation just uses the GFS. Cool to hear the flights
validated well for you.