|
Post by vortlobes on Aug 7, 2016 17:44:39 GMT -5
If it is the NWS it is the Electronic Technician and Computer program part of the NWS, not the Meteorologist in Charge. I told the local NWS that I was turning ALDARS off two years ago and they didn't complain on bit. I did tell the that is forces the observer to make errors that are held against the observer.
|
|
|
Post by vortlobes on Aug 7, 2016 18:00:11 GMT -5
Worked lots of convective wx today and ALDARS was as bad as usual. A couple of weeks ago it wouldn't recognize a cell overhead until it went past overhead and called it a VCTS when it was obviously a TS. Today at 52 minutes and 21 seconds after the hour, before the METAR at 53...it put TS in present wx when there was no convective cloud in the TS 5 mile area. The closest CB was 15 miles out from the station. Luckily I was able to remove the erroneous TS before transmission time. Weather Underground and the FAA Radar didn't call it a T storm only Crappy ALDARS. All I can figure is that there was something in the atmosphere like a small piece of chaff or insects, or dust, or smoke?? Anyone else have problems like this?
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Aug 7, 2016 21:16:05 GMT -5
have always had similar problems with ALDARS...solution...leave it off..or it will burn you.
|
|
|
Post by zoomthundersnow on Aug 7, 2016 23:09:35 GMT -5
We can discuss, and educate externally about how ALDARS operates. Sweet! A system that only reports DSNT LTG RMS, and doesn't adhere to current standards, and memos, draft manuals are guidance for a program that is part of the NAS, can now be discussed on a external platform.
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Aug 8, 2016 10:39:53 GMT -5
here's a lawrs example of what ALDARS will for for ya. FAA would say nothing wrong with this example. but you better stop putting first and last augmented on your first/last augmented obs!!
081244Z 08013KT 10SM VCTS BKN110 19/12 A3004 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAB16E28 TSB07E38 TS OHD MOV N OCNL LTGICCG VC P0000 T01940122 081213Z 16014KT 10SM TS FEW060 FEW075 BKN100 21/12 A3004 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT ALQDS TSB07 OCNL LTGICCG VC VCSH T02060122 081153Z 16007KT 10SM VCTS FEW110 21/12 A3001 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT ALQDS RAE07 TSE21 SLP084 VCSH P0000 60000 T02060117 10244 20200 51009 081127Z AUTO 20005KT 10SM FEW110 21/12 A3001 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT NE AND SW RAE07 TSE21 P0000 T02060122 081053Z AUTO 15008KT 10SM -TSRA BKN110 22/12 A3000 RMK AO2 RAB48 TSB45 SLP079 P0000 T02170117 081051Z AUTO 16006KT 10SM -TSRA BKN110 22/11 A3000 RMK AO2 RAB48 TSB45 P0000 081037Z AUTO 16005KT 10SM VCTS BKN110 22/11 A3000 RMK AO2 T02170106
6. lawrs/ALDARS mix
1051...TSB45 in remarks...however...a VCTS is in present wx at 1037 1231...TS in present wx (TS within 5 miles of ap)...but lawrs has the LTG 5-10 miles from ap. 1153...TS ended at 1121 in remarks...however...VCTS is in present wx 1244...VCTS in present wx...lawrs has the TS overhead and the LTG 5-10 miles from ap in remarks. also remarks show the TS ended at 1238.
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Aug 8, 2016 18:29:22 GMT -5
It is clear that most CWOs do not understand the governing manuals issued by FAA, and they do not understand how ALDARS works and how ASOS reports lightning data received from ALDARS. Thanks for the respect, wxmatrix. You should try working with this piece of junk. How many people have to die before you get a clue? No one on this forum is falsifying data.
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Aug 9, 2016 9:29:24 GMT -5
According NWS and FAA Tech Ops, ALDARS is accurate. If an observer/SWO will document a specific incident, time and date and observation that they claim ALDARS was inaccurate, we can forward that information to Tech Ops to investigate the event. Otherwise, these are general complaints which we cannot verify. I don’t know what it means by ALDARS reporting TB? But again, if an error is noticed, it should be reported so it can be investigated by FAA. The 7900.5D is being revised to address the VCTS contraction and ALDARS. For people who have asked, we have told them that VCTS is now permitted at ALDARS capable stations.
Ken Cunningham Contract Operations Group (AJT-21) Western Service Area POC
Which was a follow up to:
Attached is a copy of the ALDARS memo that was issued along with the training for the ASOS 3.10 software upgrade. We’re being notified that some sites are turning the ALDARS off, this is a violation of the FAA Policy that was issued, so ensure your facilities are in compliance.
Ken Cunningham Contract Operations Group (AJT-21) Western Service Area POC Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Ave. SW
So when the FAA is "being notified that some sites are turning ALDARS off", it's factual, but when observers in the field are telling them first-hand it's junk we get "these are general complaints which we cannot verify". That makes sense, Ken. Riiiiiggggghhhhhttttt.....
And by the way, if we find a problem with ALDARS and need to document it, who do we actually send the claim to, Ken? Some specifics are overdue here if you're going to tell people to document problems. Or is this just going to be another FAA boondoggle like the Wind Sensor going out for more than 5 minutes and contacting this fellow in the FAA that never responds, never gets looked at, and nothing has changed?
skobie
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Aug 9, 2016 11:53:30 GMT -5
As far as ALDARS and CWOs go, I've read all of the documented manuals called upon in this thread very carefully and have drawn some conclusions:
First, any sensor that an observer feels is not working correctly (broken) or just not reporting accurately (can't keep up due to averaging, etc.) can be overridden or just plain turned off. Obviously, in the case of the broken sensor, it's going to send up a $ or we as observers will report it to AOMC, the NWS, or our immediate Supervisor (usually the Lead Observer) and sign it out besides.
Second, I agree with CWOs being an "Augmented" station as defined by the 7900.5c in paragraph 2.2.b which states "Augmented Station. A facility with a 'Federally Procured' automated surface weather observing system that prepares the METAR/SPECI with a certified observer on duty capable of adding operationally significant weather information to the observation. The observer is completely responsible for the observation even though the automated weather observing system generates the report.". This definition speaks volumes about what we do as CWOs and is very important to not only the above paragraph, but also below:
Third, the 7900.5c and the FMH-1, however, do a much less specific job in defining "automated" vs "augmented" vs "manual" stations when it comes to lightning detection and thunderstorm reporting. There is only a definition of "automated" versus "manual" and in reading the FMH 12.7.1.j.1 vs 12.7.1.j.2 and the the 7900 14.29.a vs 14.29.b, we are certainly not an "automated" station in either case, so I would tend to defer to our reporting procedures as more of "manual" as defined in the above Orders when it comes to lightning especially. Completely automated stations are those in which there is no CWO or LAWRS on duty, which is when ALDARS might be better than nothing. The only thing I can conclude here is that obviously we have to manually input data in to ASOS, regardless of how "automated" it is (remember we are responsible for what comes out of it) and that includes lightning and thunderstorm data. Why in the heck would we let ALDARS run by itself if we're here to augment/back up all of ASOS's sensors "manually" because we can do a more precise job than any automated system can? I believe that is covered under "safety first" in any situation.
Based on the above and because the 7900 is supposed to be a more specific manual derived from the FMH, when the FMH states in 12.7.1.j that "When lightning is observed at a manual station, the frequency, type of lightning, and location shall be reported." The 7900 does NOT include type of lightning in 14.29.a "When lightning is observed at a manual location, the frequency and location must be reported.". That's a contradiction and the FMH must be used here because it is more specific and the 7900 cannot take away from, but only add to the FMH. So, in other words, as soon as ALDARS reports any type of lightning, it is inaccurate for an "augmented" station and should be corrected (which may include temporarily turning it off). In other words, ALDARS can never be correct because it cannot report type of lightning (in part because it mostly only detects CG lightning and it won't even tell you that much), which I always report, as many of you do I'm sure. There may be contradictions that may or may not get corrected in the future between these Orders and there may be situations not covered by either of these Orders that will be inevitable, but as the cover letter on the last update of the 7900 states " ...Observers are expected to exercise experienced judgement when encountering situations not covered by this order.". Though this topic may be swatted back and forth a few more times, I consider this matter closed and I'll take my 20+ years of experience as a weather observer and other meteorological credentials (which many of you have as well) and exercise my experienced judgement in observational reporting.
skobie
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on Aug 9, 2016 12:32:49 GMT -5
Well said Skobie
|
|
|
Post by alstein on Aug 9, 2016 12:58:16 GMT -5
If the FAA tried to go after an observer/station/contractor for turning ALDARS off because it is incorrect, they would get one hell of a shitstorm, especially after Congress gave them a rebuke for trying to shut us down this year.
What I'll probably end up doing is leaving ALDARS on until it reports something, then call it broken and turn it off because it is reporting incorrect and insufficient remarks for a manual station, or it is giving a ridiculous false positive again.
Document every case of this as an outage to boot.
At the very least it will force the FAA to change the software to report the remarks correctly.
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Aug 9, 2016 14:19:00 GMT -5
14.29.a. also says to report the type of lightning IF KNOWN. so legally if we see frequent streaks of lightning at a distance, but for whatever reason cannot tell the type..FRQ LTG DSNT N is valid. some would argue a TYPE is required. I suppose if ALDARS was on and reported LTG DSNT N we could delete the ALDARS remark and manually insert FRQ LTGCG DSNT N...since ALDARS primarily detects CG strikes. I will not allow LTG DSNT N and FRQ LTGCG DSNT N in the same metar/speci. remember also, that ALDARS generates a speci to begin a VCTS...but does not enter a TB time in remarks. then, if the TS moves within 5 miles, ALDARS generates another speci with a TB time...even thought a TS (VCTS) was already previously occurring. then...if the TS moves back outside 5 miles...ASOS generates another speci. in my opinion...a manned CWO should NOT be REQUIRED to have ALDARS on. part time CWO's turn it on when they leave and off when they come back. common sense. Most lawrs leave it on and we see the results day after day.
|
|
donny
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by donny on Aug 9, 2016 14:58:59 GMT -5
It is not difficult to edit this in the remarks section. ALDARS is on for statistical and practical uses nationwide. Backing up ALDARS with a remark can be done easily without actually shutting it off. This shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Aug 9, 2016 15:14:40 GMT -5
It's the stupidity and disrespect that gets us Donny - a "work around" the executive order doesn't assuage the anger following such insult. T'storms we handle very well, contribute to the safety of the NAS, and help us feel good about what we are doing. If the FAA succeeds in destroying our job satisfaction, many of us will quit taking our experience with us leaving the rookies who don't have much (if any) manual obs experience - which in turn will justify FAA action to shutter the rest of us. This battle just won't go away until the Feds realize the folly of automation controlling wx reporting. We will be editing much more than just the remarks with ALDARS - much easier to turn it off and report correctly to start with - for timeliness and without COR obs, since ASOS likes to throw things at us at the last second.
|
|
donny
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by donny on Aug 9, 2016 15:33:23 GMT -5
It's the stupidity and disrespect that gets us Donny - a "work around" the executive order doesn't assuage the anger following such insult. T'storms we handle very well, contribute to the safety of the NAS, and help us feel good about what we are doing. If the FAA succeeds in destroying our job satisfaction, many of us will quit taking our experience with us leaving the rookies who don't have much (if any) manual obs experience - which in turn will justify FAA action to shutter the rest of us. This battle just won't go away until the Feds realize the folly of automation controlling wx reporting. We will be editing much more than just the remarks with ALDARS - much easier to turn it off and report correctly to start with - for timeliness and without COR obs, since ASOS likes to throw things at us at the last second. It is a tool that can be used to your benefit just like radar. It does not have to be reported within your personal observation with your initials attached. As stated before, the information is collected and used for a purpose. Also, there are other aspects of the job to take pride in. This isn't worth fighting about. The order has been issued and likely will not be repealed.
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Aug 9, 2016 15:42:11 GMT -5
I agree it's issued and not likely to be repealed... but the quality of reporting from ALDARS makes it mostly unusable. The notion of radio detection and triangulation to determine location and polarity of LTG is sound - when confirmed by human observer, but the ability of ASOS to produce even close to accurate obs with ALDARS is extremely suspect.
|
|