Hi @rhorne99 you're right, there's nothing that prevents a 3-axis stabilised satellite from behaving like Meteosat 1st or 2nd generation.
Meteosat 3rd generation deviates from the concept of previous generations by scanning in out of alignment with the image's axes. And to make matters more interesting this misalignment is different throughout the full disc scan - it's skewed in opposite directions in opposing hemispheres. This picture illustrates how it works:  The result of this is that the position within the data array doesn't necessarily map to a position on the Earth in the same way that it did before. I think you put it well when [you said](https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/258#issuecomment-607480360) > the location of data points in the projection vary as a function of how the > imaging instrument works In this configuration there isn't really a fixed axis at all. This is why we'd like to be able to signify which axes give elevation and azimuth angles. Independently of how the instrument is scanning, then, a rectified product would be well-described using these attributes. If this approach makes sense to somebody who's not me I'll put together a pull request showing the exact changes proposed :) -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/258#issuecomment-607661664 This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from cf-metad...@cgd.ucar.edu, although if you do nothing, a subscription to the UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list. To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to cf-metadata-unsubscribe-requ...@listserv.llnl.gov.
