Best free paragliding forecasts: what each tool does

For a free paragliding forecast, start with Windy for the regional picture and OutDare for a personal flyability verdict at your launch. Add Soaringmeteo for soaring and convection, meteoblue for the vertical atmosphere, or Paraglidable for a quick view of flying potential. burnair has useful free same-day tools, especially for Alpine planning. Meteo-Parapente is a paid thermal specialist, not a free alternative.

“Best” below means most useful for the stated job, not a measured accuracy ranking. OutDare publishes this guide. Product features and payment boundaries were checked against official sources on 4 November 2026.

Which forecast is best for which job?

The useful split is weather maps, atmospheric analysis and a site-specific verdict. No single green indicator describes all three. Choose the tool that answers your question, then cross-check with a different source rather than installing every app on the list.

Service	Best use in this comparison	Free versus paid
Soaringmeteo	Soaring conditions, convection and Alpine forecasts	Public forecasts; voluntary support
Windy.com	Regional flow, weather layers and model comparison	Free access; Premium adds detail and updates
meteoblue	Meteograms and the vertical atmosphere	Free forecasts and 3-day Air; point+ adds features
Paraglidable	Statistical flying and XC potential	Public forecast map
burnair	Alpine launch weather and terrain context	Free today; longer and thermal forecasts paid
OutDare	Personal site verdict, 7-day outlook and alerts	Free, no ads or subscription
Meteo-Parapente	Dedicated thermal forecasting	Paid; €36/year published

This is not a complete inventory of every layer or country. A forecast's geographical coverage and useful horizon differ by product. Check that the named model actually covers your launch rather than assuming a regional high-resolution model runs worldwide.

Which free tools help with thermals and winds aloft?

Soaringmeteo is a useful starting point for soaring and convection, while meteoblue helps you read the atmosphere vertically. The Soaringmeteo documentation describes soarGFS and soarWRF, with Alpine domains and supporting educational material. You need to learn what the layers represent; a favourable thermal signal is not permission to fly.

meteoblue's Meteogram Air shows wind, cloud and temperature through atmospheric layers. Its documentation distinguishes a free three-day Air view from the longer point+ version. It also warns that the model grid's terrain height can differ from the actual site. That is especially relevant on steep slopes.

Meteo-Parapente belongs alongside these tools because its focus is thermal flying, but its official subscription costs €36 a year. Do not treat “accessible on the web” or a sample view as proof that an entire specialist service is free.

Thermal strength alone is not a suitable target. A day can look productive for experienced XC pilots yet be inappropriate for a recent graduate. Cloud development, upper wind, timing and your current ability still determine whether the project makes sense.

Which tools make tomorrow's plan quicker?

Windy is useful for the regional flow; Paraglidable compresses flying potential into a statistical view. Windy.com displays several weather models and layers, with a free service and Premium additions. It is useful for seeing fronts and how wind changes across the wider area, rather than judging one launch from a surface arrow.

Paraglidable describes a neural network trained using weather and reported-flight data. Its flyability and cross-country scores summarise patterns associated with recorded flying. They do not establish your personal launch limits or whether a site is legally open.

A statistical score can help you decide which day deserves closer study. It should not become a shortcut around the actual wind profile. Reported flights also reflect pilot behaviour and where people choose to fly, not simply whether the air was suitable everywhere.

For burnair, the important distinction is the plan: its official overview lists today's launch forecast in Free, five-day launch forecasts from Basic and thermal forecasts in Premium. That makes the free offering worth examining without calling the whole service a free thermal forecast.

Can a free app tell me if my own site is flyable?

OutDare gives each site a personal flyable-or-not verdict and sends free alerts when a saved site meets your criteria. It combines a 7-day site forecast with your wind range, gust tolerance and wing, alongside its site database, recorder, 3D replay and live tracking. It is free without ads or a subscription. Those facts come from the existing OutDare product information.

Keep the layers conceptually separate. A site verdict helps you filter places and time windows; it is not a dedicated thermal model or an all-hazard assessment. Two pilots with different experience and settings may reasonably reach different plans from the same forecast.

For a practical sequence, use the tomorrow flyability checklist. For how these weather tools fit around an in-flight instrument, read the paragliding app comparison.

What should I do when the forecasts disagree?

First establish whether the disagreement is real. Check the same hour, coordinates, height and variable. One chart might show a mean at launch level while another shows gusts near the surface; one might be in local time while another uses UTC. Correcting those differences can explain an apparent conflict without choosing a preferred app.

Next inspect the forecast run and the underlying model. The newest-looking interface does not necessarily contain a newer calculation, and two services displaying the same model are not independent votes. A forecast disagreement near your personal limits is useful information about uncertainty, not a reason to average the numbers into a reassuring middle value.

If a small timing or direction change would make the site unsuitable, the plan has little margin. Consider a simpler project or a different day rather than hunting for a third service that agrees with the optimistic answer. The goal of comparison is to understand the range of plausible conditions, not to accumulate permission to go.

Keep the actual observation separate. A station can show what happened at its own location, provided its timestamp and exposure are appropriate. It cannot directly verify tomorrow's forecast, and a measurement in the valley cannot settle what happens on the ridge. Use observations to test whether today's evolution matches the expected pattern.

How do I build a useful free routine?

Write your questions in the order you need to answer them. Is the regional weather appropriate? Does the wind profile make sense at this site? Is there a realistic window within your limits? Are the site and airspace available? That order is more useful than opening the apps in a fixed sequence and hoping one gives a definite answer.

For a familiar recreational site, the routine may stay short because you already know the terrain and local rules. An unfamiliar mountain launch requires a proper local briefing and more understanding. The price of the forecast does not change that difference. Free information can support a careful plan, but it cannot supply familiarity with a place you have never visited.

Keep a brief note of the model, the window and the concern that mattered most. After a day out, compare it with observations even if you did not fly. This is a way to improve your own judgement without claiming to validate a product statistically. Repeated learning is more useful than remembering only the forecasts that supported successful flights.

If a paid specialist later solves a specific gap, adding it does not mean the free routine failed. Decide which information you need and whether the extra access genuinely provides it. A clear free baseline makes that purchase easier to assess, because you know exactly what question remains unanswered.

How should I cross-check without drowning in apps?

Use one regional source, one site or vertical view and current observations, then investigate disagreements. Opening five interfaces is not five independent forecasts if they all show the same model run. Check the underlying model and update time before counting agreement as confidence.

1. Confirm the launch coordinates, orientation and altitude.
2. Read the broad flow and any official weather warnings.
3. Compare wind and gusts during the intended window, including the air above the ridge.
4. Check cloud development and precipitation, not just the sunshine icon.
5. Review airspace, NOTAMs, access rules and local advice separately.
6. Recheck recent observations and the launch itself before deciding.

Watch time zones and units. A forecast hour in UTC and an alert in local time can appear to disagree even when they describe the same moment. Likewise, do not compare a surface gust with a wind average aloft as though they were the same variable.

This is a planning framework, not flight instruction or a universal wind-limit table. Learn weather interpretation with a qualified school and choose a simpler plan if uncertainty is beyond your experience. When in doubt, do not launch.