GFS and NAM MOS forecasts are available on the National Weather Service website for many stations, many of which are at general aviation airports not served by TAFs. (MOS forecasts also are available on the ForeFlight app, in easy-to-read text presented in an hourly format.) Remember, TAFs are valid for an area within a 5-statute-mile radius of the airport. MOS forecasts can be valuable advisories, but TAFs are the official sources for airport forecasts. That’s because they are created by meteorologists at the National Weather Services’ weather forecast offices who are familiar with local weather patterns. But, guess what they check when making their forecasts—yep, MOS data.
Don’t want to decode a bunch of text codes? Then meteograms can provide visual charts of weather conditions at airports and other, user-defined (by latitude and longitude) locations around the nation. Meteograms also use MOS data as source material but are not as detailed as MOS-generated forecasts, vary in design, and can extend to eight days in the future. Like MOS information, meteograms are not valid as official preflight weather sources, but they can offer plenty of high-quality situational awareness. Search around and you’ll find more websites offering meteograms of various designs, including the Rapid Update Cycle model’s output, which lets you access up to 600 airports. By comparing MOS text and meteogram forecasts you can see how the GFS, NAM, RUC, and other sources can come up with different ideas of future weather. Comparing them against TAFs can shed insights on how aviation meteorologists buy into them—or not.