Interpreting TAF Verification Statistics: The Impact of TEMPO Forecasts (Corrected May 21, 2007) Chuck Kluepfel National Weather Service Headquarters Silver.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

JKL Aviation Grid Services Dusty Harbage – Aviation Program Leader Brian Schoettmer – Asst. Aviation Program Leader.

Advertisements

First Results of Thunderstorm Forecast Verification in Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts in Croatia Jadran Jurković and Igor Kos Croatia control Ltd, MET Division.

$500 What is 30 degrees? A change in wind speed to over/under 12 knots and more than X degrees direction change requires amendment. $500 What is a Wind.

Formally referred to as a Skew-T Log-P thermodynamic diagram Uses temperature and pressure as coordinates Properties of air parcels can be evaluated and.

Dan Shoemaker Aviation Curmudgeon, NWS FWD From a 2005 study done with: Rick Curtis, Chief Meteorologist, SWA Paul Witsaman, Southern Region RAM.

Aviation User Training: TAF Interpretation and Supplemental Products.

Categorical Amendment Criteria (CAC) FAQ Session Aviation Services Branch November, 2009.

NWS TAF Verification Brandi Richardson NWS Shreveport, LA.

Lead Time Aviation Verification Onset and Cessation of Ceiling and Visibility Flight Category Conditions (IFR, MVFR, VFR) at FAA Core Airports NWS Aviation.

GreenCig/Vis Categories match Pale Green Situational awareness Orange 2 categories off, Multiple impacts Yellow 1 category off, Singular impact Red 3 categories.

Forecasting Thunderstorms in Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts (TAFs) Some new insights Steven Thompson National Weather Service (NWS) La Crosse, WI.

Paul Fajman NOAA/NWS/MDL September 7,  NDFD ugly string  NDFD Forecasts and encoding  Observations  Assumptions  Output, Scores and Display.

Meteorology 5.10 TAFs References: FTGU pages

DATA SHEETS AND GRAPHS. RECORDING MEASUREMENTS If you are doing any measuring process, you must record all measurements you’ve got. Recorded measurements.

Regional Gliding School includes: isobars (joins places of equal pressure), high and low pressure areas, air masses and fronts shows actual conditions.

Printed Reports and Forecasts

Aviation Verification and Convection Chris Leonardi WFO RLX August 31, 2005.

Federal Aviation Administration V.1.04 Presented by FAA Academy Air Traffic Division Initial Training Branch Air Traffic Basics 50043/50143 Forecasts and.

METAR/TAF YOUR “NEW” AVIATION WEATHER FORMAT

Aviation Cloud Forecasts – A True Challenge for Forecasters v       Jeffrey S. Tongue NOAA/National Weather Service - Upton, NY Wheee !

Warm Season Aviation Weather and Resources National Weather Service Chanhassen, MN Center Weather Service Unit Farmington, MN.

ATS/ESS 452: Synoptic Meteorology

METAR/TAF The International Weather Code

PRACTICAL TAF WRITING Karen Oudeman NWS – Jackson, KY October 16, 2003.

AVIATION VERIFICATION NWS KEY WEST 2005 Bill South Aviation Program Leader.

1 How Are We Doing? A Verification Briefing for the SAWS III Workshop April 23, 2010 Chuck Kluepfel National Weather Service Headquarters Silver Spring,

You Make the Call!: (Leslie Wanek and David Brown) x3! …Jaret Rogers and SPC’s David Bright Workshop: David Craft, Valerie Scheele, Paul Iniguez, Jessica.

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Air Force Weather Agency Lt Col Jeffrey S. Tongue Individual Mobilization Augmentee Air Force Weather.

Programming Logic and Design Fourth Edition, Introductory

Programming Logic and Design Sixth Edition

Property of Lear Siegler. 7 out of 10 Atmosphere & Airmasses, Pressure & Winds, Stability and Clouds 7 out of 10Frontal Weather 7 out of 10Weather Hazards.

Rory Salisbury – Dispatcher/Dispatch Trainer

Ryan Kardell WFO Springfield.  Purpose of the Database  Data Sources  User Guide  Formulas Used for Scoring.

1 What’s New in Verification? A Verification Briefing for the SAWS IV Workshop October 26, 2011 Chuck Kluepfel National Weather Service Headquarters Silver.

Low Clouds and IFR Forecasting Southwest Aviation Weather Safety Workshop, Phoenix, AZ Ken Widelski Meteorologist NWS: Lubbock, TX.

Summer WAS*IS 2006 National Weather Service Verification Program Overview Brenton MacAloney II National Weather Service Headquarters Silver Spring, MD.

#3573. An aircraft departs an airport in the central standard time zone at 0845 CST for a 2-hour flight to an airport located in the mountain standard.

A Preliminary Verification of the National Hurricane Center’s Tropical Cyclone Wind Probability Forecast Product Jackie Shafer Scitor Corporation Florida.

Aviation/Turbulence Forecasting. Aviation Weather Center (AWC) National Weather Service office Turbulence, flight rules, upper level progs.

Practical Meteorology and Practical Navigation Ref: FTGU Pages , AIM MET Section.

World Meteorological Organization Working together in weather, climate and water Enhanced User and Forecaster Oriented TAF Quality Assessment CAeM-XIV.

WFO Aviation Products & Services By Nick Fillo WFO Shreveport, LA 2009 Regional Aviation Conference Shreveport, LA.

Meteorology 5. –SURFACE and UPPER CHART comparison – JET STREAM – METAR – TIME ZONES – WINDS, VISIBILITY & WEATHER – OBSCURATION & SKY CONDITION – FD’s,

E6B Flight Computer VECTORS

L. Mayoraz (1), J. Ambühl (1), R. Voisard (2), C. Voisard (1), M. Züger (2), H. Romang (1) (1) MeteoSwiss, Zurich, Switzerland, (2) University of Zurich,

Effects: Example Low High Variable 2.

THUNDERSTORMS AND WIND SHEAR

UNITS OF DISTANCE AND SPEED Statute Mile is a distance of 5,280 Nautical Mile (6,080 feet) is the average length of one minute of latitude. Kilometer is.

October Lake Effect Snow in Reno Gina McGuire. What happened on October 10, 2008 in Reno/Sparks? Lake effect snow was expected and did develop off of.

INTERPRETING WEATHER INFORMATION

52 RCACS Ground School Navigation PO 404 EO 1 “Definitions”

Weather and its Impact on Aviation Operations National Weather Service Hastings, Nebraska Kearney Explorers Club November 21, 2006.

Briefing by: Roque Vinicio Céspedes Finally Here! The MOST awaited briefing ever! February 16, 2011.

Eastern Region Aviation Overview Fred McMullen Regional Aviation Meteorologist Fred McMullen Regional.

LOW CLOUDS AND IFR FORECASTING NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE KEN WIDELSKI October 11, 2005.

Brian Lukoff Stanford University October 13, 2006.

Descriptive and Inferential Statistics Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My IA.

MDL Requirements for RUA Judy Ghirardelli, David Myrick, and Bruce Veenhuis Contributions from: David Ruth and Matt Peroutka 1.

AERODROME WEATHER REPORT CODES

Programming Logic and Design Fourth Edition, Comprehensive Chapter 5 Making Decisions.

National Weather Service Eastern Region Activities Fred McMullen Regional Aviation Meteorologist Eastern Region Headquarters.

ASOS Background Observation based 1st order stations NWS/FAA measurements replaced by ASOS in mid-1990s NWS/FAA Use of METAR reporting system began July.

Terminal Area Forecast (TAF)

Expressions An expression is a portion of a C++ statement that performs an evaluation of some kind Generally requires that a computation or data manipulation.

FORECASTING COURSE SPECI CODING

Measurement Scale Chong Ho Yu, Ph.D..

Finding the Front: Two Approaches

Meteorology 5.10 TAFs References: FTGU pages

777 Neptune Flight Planning.

Thunderstorm Ceiling/Visibility Climatology

Presentation transcript:

Interpreting TAF Verification Statistics: The Impact of TEMPO Forecasts (Corrected May 21, 2007) Chuck Kluepfel National Weather Service Headquarters Silver Spring, Maryland x132

KABC z KT P6SM SCT030 TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= Question: If it only thunders for 15 minutes out of 2 hours (the length of my TEMPO group), will my False Alarm Ratio be 1 hour 45 minutes = 0.88 ? 1 hour 45 minutes = 0.88 ? 2 hours 2 hours

KABC z KT P6SM SCT030 TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= Answer: Absolutely not! We do not compute False Alarm Ratios (FAR) from the TEMPO forecast, alone. TEMPOs are not intended to be applied to the entire TEMPO period. We only compute FARs for the  Prevailing Forecast  “Operational Impact” Forecast

KABC z KT P6SM SCT030 TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB FM KT P6SM SKC= FM KT P6SM SKC= Prevailing Forecast = No TS. Therefore, the prevailing forecast FAR is undefined. Reminder, FAR = False alarm time Reminder, FAR = False alarm time Forecast time Forecast time Prevailing Forecast

KABC z KT P6SM SCT030 TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= What about the Operational Impact Forecast (OIF)? From 18-20z, two TAFs in effect. Which drives the OIF during this time period? Answer: It depends. Operational Impact Forecast

KABC z KT P6SM SCT030 TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= Apply each of these steps to every 5 minute interval of the TAF. Step 1 Variability Test Variability test changes +/- 90 minutes Variability test changes +/- 90 minutes Reminder - TS is a binary element (yes or no) Reminder - TS is a binary element (yes or no) Step 2 Pass test – OIF is defined as the forecast equal to the observation (for binary elements). Pass test – OIF is defined as the forecast equal to the observation (for binary elements). Fail test – OIF is defined as the “worst” (most pessimistic) of the two forecasts. Fail test – OIF is defined as the “worst” (most pessimistic) of the two forecasts.

TAF Example 1 KABC z KT P6SM SCT030 TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= Observation: TS began 1907z TS ended 1921z TS ended 1921z

TAF Example 1 Obs’n Prevail TEMPO Pass VAR Test? OIF Obs’n Prevail TEMPO Pass VAR Test? OIF 1805 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS No TS No TS TS Yes No TS 1910 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1915 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1920 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1925 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS 1930 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS No TS No TS TS Yes No TS

Example 1 Operational Impact Forecast F’cstYesF’cstNo Obs’dYes 3 0 Obs’dNo POD = 3/3 = 1.00 FAR = 0/3 = 0.00

Example 1 TEMPO Evaluation # Hours TEMPO 2 hours (24) Justified TEMPO 100% (24/24) Justified TEMPO Hit 12.5% (3/24) TEMPO S/B FM --- (0/0) TEMPO Benign --- (0/0) TEMPO Hurt --- (0/0)

TAF Example 2 KABC z KT P6SM SCT030 TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= Observation: TS began 1806z TS ended 1821z TS ended 1821z

TAF Example 2 Obs’n Prevail TEMPO Pass VAR Test? OIF Obs’n Prevail TEMPO Pass VAR Test? OIF 1805 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS 1810 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1815 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1820 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1825 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS 1830 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS No Ts No TS TS Yes No TS 1940 No TS No TS TS No TS 1945 No TS No TS TS No TS 1950 No TS No TS TS No TS 2055 No TS No TS TS No TS 2100 No TS No TS TS No TS

Example 2 Operational Impact Forecast F’cstYesF’cstNo Obs’dYes 3 0 Obs’dNo POD = 3 / 3 = 1.00 FAR = 5 / 8 = 0.63

Ex. 2 - What Went Wrong? Both PODs were great (1.0) Ex. 2 – much higher FAR (0.63 vs. zero) Variability Test very ImportantVariability Test very Important Failing Test means you will likely contribute heavily to FAR statistic.Failing Test means you will likely contribute heavily to FAR statistic. Last 34 minutes of Example 2 failed this test!Last 34 minutes of Example 2 failed this test! Limit TEMPO valid times to when you are relatively sure that two or more changes will occur within 90 minutes.Limit TEMPO valid times to when you are relatively sure that two or more changes will occur within 90 minutes. Don’t be afraid to amend frequently!!Don’t be afraid to amend frequently!!

Example 2 TEMPO Evaluation # Hours TEMPO 2 hours Justified TEMPO 79.2% (19/24) Justified TEMPO Hit 15.8% (3/19) TEMPO S/B FM 0 TEMPO Benign 0 TEMPO Hurt 100% (5/5)

Caveat The +/- 90 minute variability test that is performed at the end of each 5-minute period of the TAF does “look back” to the times that preceded the valid period of the TEMPO group, but it does “look back” to the times that preceded the valid period of the TEMPO group, but it does not “look back” to times that preceded the valid period of the TAF. does not “look back” to times that preceded the valid period of the TAF.

Extending Operational Impact Rules to Other Elements Variability Test (Step 1) Look for two or more changes +/- 90 minutes. For ceiling and visibility, the variability test looks for category changes. For wind direction, wind speed, and gusts, the variability test uses threshold values to define change. Sig Wx Type – Begin or end.

Ceiling Categories All changes are defined categorically: > 3000 feet > 3000 feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet feet < 200 feet < 200 feet

Visibility Categories All changes are defined categorically: > 5 statute miles > 5 statute miles 3 to 5 miles 3 to 5 miles 2 to < 3 miles 2 to < 3 miles 1 to < 2 miles 1 to < 2 miles ½ to < 1 mile ½ to < 1 mile < ½ mile < ½ mile

Wind Changes Wind Direction: Change >= 40 degrees Wind Speed: Change >= 8 knots (+/-) Wind Gusts: Change >= 10 knots (+/-)

Extending Operational Impact Rules to Other Elements Step 2 Var. Test Passes => OIF is forecast w/ smallest error Ceiling / visibility (categorical error) Ceiling / visibility (categorical error) Wind (actual error in degrees, knots) Wind (actual error in degrees, knots) Tie: OIF = Prevailing Forecast Tie: OIF = Prevailing Forecast Var. Test Fails => OIF is the forecast w/ worst weather Highest wind speed / wind gusts Highest wind speed / wind gusts Lowest ceiling / visibility Lowest ceiling / visibility Wind direction – OIF is undefined.

Returning to TAF Example 2 KABC z KT P6SM SCT030 TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB TEMPO SM +TSRA BKN008CB FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= FM2100 VRB05KT P6SM SKC= Observation: TS began 1806z TS ended 1821z TS ended 1821z

TAF Example 2 Thunderstorm Database Obs’n Prevail TEMPO Pass VAR Test? OIF Obs’n Prevail TEMPO Pass VAR Test? OIF 1805 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS 1810 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1815 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1820 TS No TS TS Yes TS 1825 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS 1830 No TS No TS TS Yes No TS No Ts No TS TS Yes No TS 1940 No TS No TS TS No TS 1945 No TS No TS TS No TS 1950 No TS No TS TS No TS 2055 No TS No TS TS No TS 2100 No TS No TS TS No TS

TAF Ex 2: Ceiling Database Obs’n Prevail TEMPO Pass VAR Test? OIF Obs’n Prevail TEMPO Pass VAR Test? OIF 1805 None (6) None (6) 800 (3) Yes None (6) (3) None (6) 800 (3) Yes 800 (3) (3) None (6) 800 (3) Yes 800 (3) (4) None (6) 800 (3) Yes 800 (3) 1825 None (6) None (6) 800 (3) Yes None (6) …… 1935 None (6) None (6) 800 (3) Yes None (6) 1940 None (6) None (6) 800 (3) No 800 (3) 1945 None (6) None (6) 800 (3) No 800 (3) 1950 None (6) None (6) 800 (3) No 800 (3) 1955 None (6) None (6) 800 (3) No 800 (3) 2000 None (6) None (6) 800 (3) No 800 (3)

TAF Ex 2: OIF Results F O R E C A S T F O R E C A S T (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) (1) O (2) B S (3) 2 E R (4) 1 V E (5) D (6) 5 16 (6) 5 16

Example 2 TEMPO Evaluation (Ceiling) # Hours TEMPO 2 hours (24) Justified TEMPO 79.2% (19/24) Justified TEMPO Hit 10.5% (2/19) Just TEMPO Imp TAF 5.3% (1/19) TEMPO S/B FM 0 TEMPO Benign 0 TEMPO Hurt 100% (5/5)