|
Post by weatheri on Mar 31, 2015 11:30:01 GMT -5
Regarding the false TSExx RMK. We have discovered this: If, during a thunderstorm, the observer manually enters TS, and then the thunderstorm ends, then when VCTS begins sometime in the future - it can be days later - the false TSExx appears. The false TSExx only shows up when VCTS begins sometime after an observer has manually entered TS in Present Weather. TSExx does not appear following events where ALDARS automatically put TS in Present Weather. Thanks for this!
|
|
aero0
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by aero0 on Apr 1, 2015 16:07:44 GMT -5
Last Summer there was quite a bit of very good info on how to deal with ALDARS, but it has been apparently mysteriously erased.. SO we will have to struggle along with ALDARS a program that should have been much more thoroughly checked out at the NWS testing site.
|
|
|
Post by weatheri on Apr 2, 2015 10:10:15 GMT -5
Now don't throw stones.
ALDARS is a fantastic operational tool in our toolbox. Most observers came from the mindset on the importance of "THE WEATHER OBSERVATION." It was drilled into us from the beginning.
The sophistication of equipment on the ground, in the aircraft and even in space has changed dramatically since my early observing days. The FAA and Airport think operational. They have a standard and rules regarding lightning and ALDARS meets those standards. According to the NWS, the ALDARS is 15-20% more effect than a human observer (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/asos/pdfs/aum-toc.pdf section 4.3.4).
If lightning is within 5 miles certain protocols go into effect. It does not matter about direction only that it is within 5 miles.
There is another set of protocols for lightning between 5 and 10 miles. Again, it does not matter where they are, only that they are present between 5 and 10 miles.
Next comes outside of 10 miles. Here they want the direction as it could impact approache and takeoff patterns.
So if they see TS, they know lightning is within 5 and the most stringent protocols go into effect. If they see VCTS, they know lightning is within 5 and 10 and relax the within 5SM protocols and initiate the VC protocols. When the lightning is outside of 10 the ramp starts buzzing again and things are getting better.
If there is no human observer the ALDARS is far superior than nothing.
Now granted, ICCCCA is ignored so it misses some thunderstorms and there are false positives and it reports lighting beyond 30SM and it does not conform to the JO 7900.5C standards, but it is still better than nothing.
My complaint is that it takes control of the ASOS and you have to fight it to get the observation formatted correctly. The next software upgrade should have a function key shortcut that the Human Observer can push to have control of the ASOS.
Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by fu on Apr 2, 2015 10:40:17 GMT -5
Now don't throw stones.
Not throwing stones weatheri but ALDARS doesn't belong at manned CWO's in it's current configuration. ALDARS is a fantastic operational tool in our toolbox.
This would be a better tool for our "toolbox" at a fraction of the cost and without screwing up ASOS. www.whateverworks.com/itemdy00.aspx?T1=KC4400Now granted, ICCCCA is ignored so it misses some thunderstorms and there are false positives and it reports lighting beyond 30SM and it does not conform to the JO 7900.5C standards, but it is still better than nothing.Would the NWS approve wind sensors that only reported the winds from 090-180 degrees? Temp sensors that only reported temps from 10-30 degrees? Of course not so why would they approve a lightning detection system that only detects some lightning? My complaint is that it takes control of the ASOS and you have to fight it to get the observation formatted correctly. The next software upgrade should have a function key shortcut that the Human Observer can push to have control of the ASOS.
Agree 100% with this. Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by alstein on Apr 2, 2015 10:59:14 GMT -5
At our site, I know one or two businesses use one of those. You can hear the alarm going off sometimes. More accurate than ALDARS to boot.
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Apr 2, 2015 13:26:09 GMT -5
loks like ALDARS began a TS...but never ended it. except in present weather.
KSPI 021752Z 29019G24KT 10SM BKN110 21/13 A2976 RMK AO2 PK WND 24026/1701 SLP075 60003 T02110133 10217 20156 55002 KSPI 021652Z 23012G19KT 10SM FEW070 SCT090 SCT110 20/13 A2974 RMK AO2 SLP067 T02000133 KSPI 021552Z 20008KT 10SM CLR 18/15 A2970 RMK AO2 PK WND 25026/1456 PRESFR SLP055 T01830150 KSPI 021505Z 24013G26KT 10SM SCT015 BKN095 17/15 A2977 RMK AO2 PK WND 25026/1456 T01720150 KSPI 021452Z 25018G24KT 10SM BKN017 BKN110 17/14 A2977 RMK AO2 SLP078 60003 T01720144 51022 KSPI 021352Z 22009KT 10SM OVC023 16/14 A2975 RMK AO2 RAE1256B06E48 TSB32 SLP071 P0003 T01610139 KSPI 021333Z 21010KT 10SM TS BKN021 BKN031 16/14 A2974 RMK AO2 RAE1256B06E22 TSB32 P0002 T01610139
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Apr 2, 2015 15:20:02 GMT -5
ALDARS has THREE TS begin times...
012052Z 17017KT 10SM -TSRA BKN036CB BKN047 26/18 A2986 RMK AO2 RAB06E24B35 TSB26B29B30 SLP097 OCNL LTGICCCCG OHD TS OHD MOV E P0000 60000 T02610178 56018 $ 012034Z 16017G21KT 10SM TS BKN036CB BKN047 27/18 A2986 RMK AO2 RAB06E24 TSB26B29B30 OCNL LTGICCCCG OHD TS OHD MOV E P0000 T02670183 $
|
|
|
Post by weatheri on Apr 2, 2015 19:07:33 GMT -5
Would the NWS approve wind sensors that only reported the winds from 090-180 degrees? Temp sensors that only reported temps from 10-30 degrees? Of course not so why would they approve a lightning detection system that only detects some lightning?
Currently, no lightning detection system that I know of detects anything except CG lightning.
Again, it is better than nothing.
Regards.
|
|
|
Post by fu on Apr 2, 2015 20:51:15 GMT -5
Currently, no lightning detection system that I know of detects anything except CG lightning.
That is true and LTG detection has a place at sports stadiums and on golf courses where they are only concerned about CG strikes zapping people on the ground. That's not the case at airports though where planes can be hit by any type of lightning.
You mentioned the protocols that the FAA is concerned about re: TS, VCTS etc. If they are so concerned about those protocols why do they allow ASOS to go through the full 5 min edit period after it detects LTG and begins a TS or VCTS at C and D level sites? You would think if a thunderstorm began overhead they would want that info out immediately, a rapidly moving storm might no longer be in the 0-5 or 6-10 mile range by the time the SPECI transmitted. I'm sure you know how the ALDARS measures distance from the station. I don't believe the way it measures distance provides accurate distances at some of the larger sized airports. If the distances aren't accurate the TS/VCTS that ALDARS initiates would not be accurate either.
Again not throwing stones just trying to understand why you feel that ALDARS is such a fantastic tool when the majority of people that I have talked to about it feel it is useless at stations with trained observers. I get that it is nice to have LTG detection available but many CWO's have had access to LD long before the ALDARS was added to the toolbox, it was never tied directly into the ASOS before which I think we would both agree is the problem most people have with it at manned sites.
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Apr 3, 2015 0:35:54 GMT -5
lets compare a competent observer to ALDARS.
ALDARS...LTG DSNT NW. observer: FRQ LTGICCG DSNT NW CB DSNT NW MOV SE...airport is alerted CB moving toward airport.
ALDARS...nothing. observer: FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E...observer alerts airport of TS OHD
ALDARS...VCTS. observer: CONS LTGCG VC E TS VC E MOV E...observer alerts airport of TS 5-10 miles east moving away from airport.
ALDARS cannot compete with a competent observer. it is only of limited use at unmanned sites. not to mention the big mess that many times occurs at ATCT sites when obstrollers and ALDARS are in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by alstein on Apr 3, 2015 1:57:07 GMT -5
CB DSNT and movement gets written up as an error here, which I think is stupid, but gotta play by the rules here.
|
|
|
Post by weatheri on Apr 3, 2015 2:01:29 GMT -5
lets compare a competent observer to ALDARS. ALDARS...LTG DSNT NW. observer: FRQ LTGICCG DSNT NW CB DSNT NW MOV SE...airport is alerted CB moving toward airport. ALDARS...nothing. observer: FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E...observer alerts airport of TS OHD ALDARS...VCTS. observer: CONS LTGCG VC E TS VC E MOV E...observer alerts airport of TS 5-10 miles east moving away from airport. ALDARS cannot compete with a competent observer. it is only of limited use at unmanned sites. not to mention the big mess that many times occurs at ATCT sites when obstrollers and ALDARS are in the mix. Again, it is better than nothing. Of course a human is better, only a fool would think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by weatheri on Apr 3, 2015 2:20:02 GMT -5
The NWS says ALDARS is more effective than a human observer and you want me to buy that? Tell you what... go ahead and quit if you are working at a CWO because according to the NWS you are stealing money. The NWS for DECADES has promoted all kinds of studies to tell the users that ASOS is better than a human observer. Remember the slant visibility argument? I go by the GAO report on ASOS that said that ASOS performs at its worst during rapidly changing weather....exactly when weather info is most critical. You can listen to the James Lee types at the NWS, I wont do it. I have seen how automation has killed the skill of forecasters these days. The TAFs are an absolute embarrassment and that is because the acne scarred kids who write them have never taken a we ather ob. I read the forecast discussions now as compared to 30 years ago and all they do today is play pick the model. No hand scale analysis, no skill of any kind is displayed. I am supposed to listen to an agency that threw away tons of experience for a bunch of kids with 20 core hours in math and synoptic and dynamic meteorolgy courses?
Calling ALDARS a tool for a cwo site is encouraging lazy observing practice. A situationaly aware CWO observer is far better than ALDARS is today. About ALDARS taking control of the ASOS makes no sense to me because a skilled CWO observer understands how to kill ALDARS by either the Sensor STAT combo or to use the present wx and sequence remarks keys to keep ALDARS out of your report before any convective activity is occurring.
Good gosh, I didn't say it was better. NWS told the FAA it is better 15-20%. That is why the FAA is backing the ALDARS. I never said it, nor do I agree with it. Saying ALDARS makes an observer lazy is not true. Does the ceilometer make an observer lazy? Of course not, it is a tool, same as the ALDARS.
The ALDARS has another built in problem that most do not realize. If it detects lightning to the DSNT SW 12 minutes ago and none since, it continues to report the lightning to the DSNT SW even though the associated CB has moved.
Of course a dedicated, trained weather observer is superior to an unmanned site. However, the ALDARS has its place just like the radar and satellite.
I think all the ASOS sensors are a fantastic tool as well and they do not make me lazy.
Of course an observer can turn the report processing off and us a number of other features to take control. That is exactly what I was referring to; you should not have to go through all those gyrations because of ALDARS.
Regards.
|
|
|
Post by weatheri on Apr 3, 2015 2:26:38 GMT -5
CB DSNT and movement gets written up as an error here, which I think is stupid, but gotta play by the rules here. That makes no sense. JO 7900.5C is specific that it is reported: CB or CBMAM_LOC_(MOV_DIR). A CB 20 miles SW moving NE should be recorded as CB DSNT SW MOV NE following the guidance in JO 7900.5C.
|
|
|
Post by fu on Apr 3, 2015 5:52:33 GMT -5
lets compare a competent observer to ALDARS. ALDARS...LTG DSNT NW. observer: FRQ LTGICCG DSNT NW CB DSNT NW MOV SE...airport is alerted CB moving toward airport. ALDARS...nothing. observer: FRQ LTGIC OHD TS OHD MOV E...observer alerts airport of TS OHD ALDARS...VCTS. observer: CONS LTGCG VC E TS VC E MOV E...observer alerts airport of TS 5-10 miles east moving away from airport. ALDARS cannot compete with a competent observer. it is only of limited use at unmanned sites. not to mention the big mess that many times occurs at ATCT sites when obstrollers and ALDARS are in the mix. Again, it is better than nothing. Of course a human is better, only a fool would think otherwise. "According to the NWS, the ALDARS is 15-20% more effect than a human observer (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/asos/pdfs/aum-toc.pdf section 4.3.4)."
|
|