slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Convection & Wind Shear Hazards User Needs: An Air Transportation, Northwest Airlines & Human in the Loop Perspe PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Convection & Wind Shear Hazards User Needs: An Air Transportation, Northwest Airlines & Human in the Loop Perspe

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35

Convection & Wind Shear Hazards User Needs: An Air Transportation, Northwest Airlines & Human in the Loop Perspe - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 129 Views
  • Uploaded on

Convection & Wind Shear Hazards User Needs: An Air Transportation, Northwest Airlines & Human in the Loop Perspective. WMO Workshop on Nowcast & Added Value Services for ATC and TAFs Toulouse, France 9-10 September 2005. Tom Fahey, Mgr. Meteorology Northwest Airlines.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Convection & Wind Shear Hazards User Needs: An Air Transportation, Northwest Airlines & Human in the Loop Perspe' - chung


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Convection & Wind Shear Hazards User Needs:An Air Transportation, Northwest Airlines & Human in the Loop Perspective

WMO Workshop on Nowcast & Added Value Services for ATC and TAFs

Toulouse, France 9-10 September 2005

Tom Fahey, Mgr. Meteorology Northwest Airlines

presentation scope
Presentation Scope___________________________
  • Industry: Air Transportation
  • Geographic: United States
  • Users: Air Traffic Managers
    • Air Traffic Organizations
    • Airline Operation Centers (AOC’s)
  • Information: Weather Hazards
convection
Convection___________________________
  • Collaborative Convective Forecast Product (CCFP)
    • History
      • Began in 1998 as a ZMP CWSU, NWS & NWA Demo
    • Description of the Current CCFP Product
      • Format
      • Minimum CCFP criteria
    • 22 June 2005 CCFP Case Study
      • Future Opportunities / Recommendations
ccfp mock up example collaborative convective forecast product
CCFP - Mock Up Example(Collaborative Convective Forecast Product)

Actual Real-Time Forecasts:

website http://aviationweather.gov/products/ccfp/

ccfp minimum threshold
CCFP Minimum Threshold

CCFP Convection Area is Defined as

• Polygon of at Least 3000 sq. miles that contains:

Coverage

  • Composite reflectivity of at least 40dbZ is expected to cover at least 25% of the forecast area, and
  • Echo top of 25,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), or greater, are expected to cover at least 25% of the forecast area, and

Confidence

  • A confidence of at least 25% that the above 2 minimum criteria will be met.
ccfp coverage confidence
CCFP - Coverage & Confidence

SOLID

Sparce

Fill = Coverage

Color = Confidence

ccfp 22 june 2005

CCFP 22 June 2005

Subjective & Quantitative Verification

Tom Fahey, Mgr. Meteorology, Northwest Airlines

&

Jennifer Mahoney, Chief, Forecast Verification Branch, FSL, NOAA Research

Prepared for

Meeting: S2K+5

Location: Washington DC

Date: 13 July 2005

22 june 2005 case study motivation questions
22 June 2005 - Case Study Motivation & Questions
  • Air Traffic Mgrs & Air Space Users:22nd CCFP did not meet Needs.
    • Area of Concern: NE US (ZBW-ZNY-ZDC ARTCC’s)
    • Time Period of Concern: 15Z - 21Z
  • Would the CCFP Producer Come to the Same Conclusion?
    • To Answer ? : Produce a Subjective, User Perspective, Verification
    • Then: Compare with Current Quantified CCFP Verification Method in Use.
  • Are AT Mgrs & Airspace User Needs Understood by CCFP producers?
    • Are the User Specifications Accurately describing the needs?
      • CCFP not required until Convection covers 3000 sq. miles.
      • Is This The right threshold?
summary 22 june 2005 subjective verification shape matching
Summary - 22 June 2005Subjective Verification-Shape Matching
  • 2 Areas Fcsted in ZBW-ZNY-ZDC Airspace
    • North Area (Southwest ZBW - ZNY - North ZDC)
      • Convective Activity developed in North Area by 17Z
        • No CCFP issued for this area at 15Z nor at 17Z Issue Time
          • Did Convection Cover > 3000sq mi @ 17Z? @19Z?
      • North Area 1st identified by CCFP @ 19Z Issue time
        • 2hr Fcst(valid 21z):
          • CCFP Convection Location Inaccurate (CCFP too Far North)
      • North Area accurate @21Z Issue Time-2hr Fcst (valid 23z)
    • South Area (ZDC [VA & NC Coastal area] )
      • South Area 1st identified @ 15Z Issue time
      • South Area inaccurate @ 15, 17, 19 & 21Z Issue times
north area convection @ 17z or 3000 sq mi green 40nm diameter circles w solid bkn or sct coverage
North AreaConvection @ 17Z > or < 3000 sq.mi.? Green=40nm diameter circles w/ Solid, Bkn or Sct coverage

North Area

north area w no ccfp convection @19z or 3000 sq mi green 4km squares of level 3 higher wx radar
North Area w/ No CCFP Convection @19Z > or < 3000 sq.mi.?Green = 4km squares of Level 3 & Higher Wx Radar

North Area

South Area

slide15
North Area w/ No CCFP Convection @19Z > or < 3000 sq.mi.?Green=40nm diameter circles w/ Solid, Bkn or Sct coverage
slide17
North Area Convection @ 21Z CCFP too far NorthGreen=40nm diameter circles w/ Solid, Bkn or Sct coverage
quantitative verification approach
Grid-based approach

Binary comparison

Compare forecasts with observations

Overlay forecasts and observations

Test inclusion in forecast

Methods consider the entire domain and sub-domains

Compute coverage separately

Quantitative Verification Approach

YN

NY

YY

NN

quantitative verification
Quantitative Verification

• 15Z Issue Time: Coverage < 3000 Sq. Miles

1,976 Square Miles

quantitative verification22
Quantitative Verification

• 15Z Issue Time: Coverage > 3000 Sq. Miles

19,139 Square Miles

conclusions recommendations
Conclusions & Recommendations_____________________________
  • Opportunity for Future User Need Definitions
    • Yes: Threshold of 3000 sq. miles needs User Input
  • 3000 sq miles of what?
    • Level 3 or higher Reflectivity? - 4km squares or
    • Traffic Impacted Areas? - 40nm diameter circles
  • Is 3000 sq. miles the correct threshold?
    • In the Aerodrome/ Airport Terminal Environment?
    • In the En Route Environment?
  • • Specific Opportunities
      • Further Define En Route Threshold
      • Develop a Terminal Environment Product
conclusions recommendations24
Conclusions & Recommendations_____________________________
  • Are There Future Verification Opportunities?
    • Yes: Both VALUE & ACCURACY

Value

Measurements of CCFP Value for Decisions by Airspace Users

Accuracy

Measurements of CCFP Accuracy for Producers (Meteorologists)

  • •Specific Opportunities
      • Importance of Coverage Definition
      • Maximum Tops Verification
      • Value of the CCFP for Users
wind shear
Wind Shear __________________________
  • The Phenomenon - Meteorological Causes
  • Measurement Capabilities
  • Distribution
  • Terminology
  • Verification
  • NWA Perspective
wind shear the phenomenon
Wind Shear - The Phenomenon
  • Sources/Causes of Low Altitude Wind Shear
    • Convection Induced
    • Terrain Induced
    • Abrupt Temperature Change
      • Fronts
      • Inversions
      • Land/Sea Breeze
    • Gusty Winds
  • Convection Induced & Terrain Induced are strongest & most transitory = Most Insidious Wind Shears
wind shear current observation capability
Wind ShearCurrent Observation Capability
  • Current: Human-in-the-Loop
    • Pilot Reports to ATC after Encountered (PIREP)
  • Current: Automated
    • U. S. Ground Based Detection
      • 43 Airports: Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)
        • 34 of 43 Upgrading to Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)
      • 40 Airports: Low Level Windshear Advisory System (LLWAS)
      • 34 Airports: Weather System Processor (WSP)
    • Aircraft Based
      • Doppler Radar (Predictive)
      • Detect Change in Aircraft Performance (Reactive)
slide28

ITWS Display

with Wind Shear Identified

slide29

Same ITWS Display

Close Up Image (5nm Range)

slide30

Wind Shear Hazard Info - Distribution

2 Text Messages

Displayed on ITWS for the Next 7 Minutes

Avail. to Pilots & AOC’s

Via TWIP

Runway Specific Info

Relayed By ATC to A/C

Human-In-Loop

Distribution

Automated Distribution

wind shear terminology
Wind Shear - Terminology
  • Aircraft Performance Definition
    • Air Speed Loss
    • Air Speed Gain
  • .Observed Flow by Ground Radar=Term Used

Divergence = LOSS

Convergence = GAIN

  • Hazard Timeliness Wording US ATC / ICAO

Automated, Observed last 1 min: Alert / Alert ?

Automated or Pirep last 20 min: Advisory / Warning ?

  • Hazard Intensity Wording

Microburst = Divergence & 30kts or More LOSS

Windshear = Divergence & less than 30kts OR any Convergence

wind shear detection verification
Wind ShearDetection Verification
  • Estimated Detection Reliability Values
    • ITWS, WSP, TDWR, LLWAS
  • Wind Shear Accuracy Values
    • No Storms Within 15 Nautical Miles
  • Opportunity: Real Time Values
final conclusions future opportunities
Final Conclusions &Future Opportunities
  • Convection
    • Air Space User Needs
      • Opportunity: Additional Definition of Forecasted Hazard
    • Geography
      • CCFP is a Beneficial En Route Phase of Flight Product
        • Cruise Altitude product (FL250 & Above)
      • Future Opportunity: Climb & Descent Phase Product
        • Departure & Arrival Product (Below FL250, vcnty airport)
        • Broader Coverage Than TAF: Approx. 100nm aerodrome radius
    • Verification
      • Opportunities
        • Additional Focus: Measurements of Meteorological Accuracy
        • New Effort: Measurement of CCFP Value to Air Space Users
final conclusions future opportunities34
Final Conclusions &Future Opportunities
  • Wind Shear
    • Hazard Information Detection & Dissemination
      • Both Ground & A/C Based Detection Needed
      • Opportunity: Automated Distribution to Pilots & AOC’s
    • Terminology
      • Education Opportunity: LOSS & GAIN
      • Clarification Opportunity: Hazard Timeliness Wording ALERT & ADVISORY vs. ALERT & WARNING
    • Verification
      • Opportunities
        • Real Time Estimation of Measurement Accuracy for Users
        • Focus of Wind Shear Conditions with Little or No Convection