Tropical Storm Krovanh Tracked East of Extreme Northern Luzon
The storm was located 1,135 kilometers east of Extreme Northern Luzon with sustained winds of 40 mph, according to a report.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 3:10 a.m. ET
Advisories are reissued at least every three hours and a storm's track and strength change between them. Check hurricanes.gov for the current advisory and your local emergency management agency for anything you need to act on.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 2, 2026, 3:37 a.m. ET — checked 1h ago.
Earlier reports
Sep 2, 2026, 3:10 a.m. ETFirst report
Tropical Storm Krovanh Monitored East of Extreme Northern Luzon
As of 11:00 a.m. on September 2, 2026, Tropical Storm Krovanh was located 1,135 kilometers east of Extreme Northern Luzon, according to a report by BusinessWorld. The storm had sustained winds of 40 mph, the report said.
The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) is monitoring the storm, which is part of a broader weather outlook that includes rainfall warnings for seven areas, BusinessWorld reported. The storm's development and potential impacts remain under observation.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 07:10current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 07:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.