|
Post by skobie on Sept 3, 2016 0:45:15 GMT -5
Exactly. And who in their right mind would order someone to purposely send out information to the entire world from a sensor that they know is non-representative? To allow ASOS (due to ALDARS) to send out a fantom TS when there isn't one is not only meteorologically (really morally) wrong, it's an order given from someone who possibly isn't mentally stable and creates a potentially dangerous situation for everyone else. No one in their right mind would allow that crap to be transmitted. And for Vaisala to state that their sensor is 90% accurate and is the best thing since sliced bread.....well of course they're going to say that....they made the f-ing sensor people! How about a 3rd party actually verify their claims, rather then them pat themselves on the back. Who does that and who would actually believe that hook, line, and sinker anyway?
I'm starting to wonder if FAA HQ isn't in bed with Vaisala for Christ sakes! In the 21 years I've been weather observing, I have never seen such pompous, wrongful, poorly-written junk coming out of FAA HQ as I have in the last 4 years. It seems to get more unbelievable and the bullshit deeper at every turn. The ironic thing is, by what authority do they think they can give any direction on anything related to meteorology? I'm calling their bluff as what they incriminate themselves by putting to print is what will bring them down in the right hands. Time to clean house and get rid of these people everyone. We need collaboration and cooperation and not unilateralism and idiosyncrasy.
skobie
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Sept 6, 2016 0:24:11 GMT -5
ASOS and ALDARS put their heads together and report a TS 5-10 miles from the AP with CLR...FAA says no problem...let it go thru and send us a report...we will investigate...
KSAF 060330Z AUTO 15014KT 10SM VCTS CLR 21/12 A3008 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT NW-E RAB0257E13 TSB0258E24 P0000 T02110122
|
|
ralph
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by ralph on Sept 6, 2016 5:17:26 GMT -5
ALDARS Help,,, I think I hear the ban playing as we take on water.
|
|
|
Post by tornado on Sept 8, 2016 8:18:52 GMT -5
From the AUG 22 2016 memo:
If that was true, why would the 7900.5C say this? From page 22: Or this? From page 111: If an observer is not certified to verify the distance to a lightning strike, how is it that examples of LTG VC and LTG DSNT are given? That could only be true if whomever wrote the 7900.5C felt that observers were able to determine whether the lightning was inside 10 miles or not. If observers are not certified to determine the distance to lightning strikes, including VC or DSNT in LTG remarks would not be possible.
|
|
|
Post by tornado on Sept 8, 2016 12:01:57 GMT -5
Agreed, hlsto2. FRQ LTG VC leaves a pilot trying to land at an airport, wondering if they need to alter their approach or not.
Taking a random site:
FRQ LTGCG VC could mean lightning was frequently striking somewhere- anywhere- between the red and green rings. How is that helpful, other than to alert the pilot to look at other information? FRQ LTGCG VC NW would pinpoint the hazard- as long as the SPECI/METAR wasn't too old.
The 3 main points I get from the FAA / ALDARS memo is: 2 - Certified weather observers are not trained to determine the distance of a lightning strike. I learned how to calculate the distance to a lightning strike, in 5th grade. It's called the flash-bang method:Live Science: How far away is lightning?Calculate the distance from lightningWikihow even has a lightning-distance cheat sheet: But it would be the National Weather Service, as the final arbiter of whether this method is accurate. Indeed, they mention it on one of their websites: Lightning Safety .pdfThe last thunderstorm that I worked, the first bolt of lightning that looked to be within 10 miles, struck to the WSW. I counted off 40 seconds until I heard thunder, and estimated its distance from my location as 8 miles. Later, when I went to the archives of lightningmaps.org, the bolt was located 7.56 miles away (which rounds to 8)! So the flash-bang method does work.
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Sept 8, 2016 15:15:24 GMT -5
Flash-Bang is good, and we use known terrain distances as well - we can locate lightening distance out to 30SM easily. Flatlanders will have to use flash-bang.
|
|
|
Post by wxmatrix on Sept 9, 2016 11:32:23 GMT -5
I think that this has been posted previously, but in any case, here is the disclaimer found on the website www.lightningmaps.org/about?lang=en : "LightningMaps.org is an additional service to the main project Blitzortung.org...The data provided by Blitzortung.org is for entertainment purposes only. We are not liable for the completeness, timeliness, quality and accuracy of the information on our website. We are not responsible for damages, resulting from trusting the content of our website or its use. The data of Blitzortung.org is not suitable for a plausibility check in insurance matters and it is not intended for protection of life and property! You must contact a commercial lightning data provider in such cases!" And the disclaimer from en.blitzortung.org/contact.php#contribution_3 : "Important information for our visitors : 'Blitzortung.org' is not an official authority for lightning or thunderstorm data. The data shown on our website is provided only for private and entertainment purposes. The project "Blitzortung.org" is for the contributors merely a voluntary leisure activity. It is not allowed to use our lightning data for storm warning systems, for plausibility checks of overvoltage damages, or risk analysis for precautionary protection of high-quality technology, even if the data are not obtained directly from our site but from third-party websites." Vaisala, which is the company that owns and operates the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN), is a commercial lightning data provider. In addition to the FAA, the following U.S. federal government agencies acquire and use lightning data provided by Vaisala's NLDN: Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -National Weather Service (NWS) -Storm Prediction Center (SPC) -National Hurricane Center (NHC) -Aviation Weather Center (AWC) -Weather Prediction Center (WPC) -Ocean Prediction Center (OPC) -Environmental Modeling Center (EMC) -National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Department of Defense -U.S. Army -U.S. Navy -U.S. Marine Corps -U.S. Air Force Department of the Interior -Bureau of Land Management National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) -Johnson Space Center -Kennedy Space Center -Marshall Space Flight Center These agencies have all chosen Vaisala's NLDN as their source for lightning data because it has been found to be the most accurate and reliable lightning detection system available. Each agency has very specific requirements (detection efficiency, ranging and location, time-stamping, reliability, etc.) that must be met for a lightning data source to be acceptable. The FAA is no different. The ALDARS simply takes the lightning data from Vaisala's NLDN and processes it for inclusion in the METAR and SPECI observations. If anyone thinks that they will win this fight that is being picked, claiming that the lightning data from NLDN/ALDARS is inaccurate, all I can say is "good luck with that." You will need to convince ALL OF THE ABOVE AGENCIES, with validated 3rd-party data and studies, that the NLDN supplies erroneous lightning data, is unreliable, and that the data is not suitable for use by the federal government.
|
|
|
Post by alstein on Sept 9, 2016 12:29:53 GMT -5
I know exactly how lightning stuff is used by the USAF. It's used just to verify lightning watches/warnings as a backup should observers not be on duty or not get it, or as a heads up to lightning headed in a direction. It is not used by observers.
The big issue with ALDARS is the false positives (200 miles away lightning strikes being "in the vicinity") and the time delays (leading to severe winds with rain during severe events)
It has its uses, but realtime information isn't one of them.
Also that very first line is proof it is not meant to be used for the purpose the FAA is intending it for.
|
|
|
Post by weatherwatcher on Sept 9, 2016 12:54:40 GMT -5
The issue is this: Why are we not working together for the common goal new member wx matrix? Why is there so much animosity towards CWOs? I personally have no problem with ALDARS being implemented. The problem arises when you state that is all we can use and we are not allowed to edit it or remove it when it is not representative. It is further insulting when it is stated we are not qualified. We are NOT controllers/observer as you would like. We are Professional Weather Observers. No one likes to be insulted or belittled. The disdain is evident by yours and others posts and it was VERY evident at the "SRM" joke panels.
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Sept 9, 2016 14:37:09 GMT -5
If anyone thinks that they will win this fight that is being picked, claiming that the lightning data from NLDN/ALDARS is inaccurate, all I can say is "good luck with that." You will need to convince ALL OF THE ABOVE AGENCIES, with validated 3rd-party data and studies, that the NLDN supplies erroneous lightning data, is unreliable, and that the data is not suitable for use by the federal government. Hey Ken, get a clue. The Lightning Detection Network (aka ALDARS) has been around since you were a baby in diapers. You seem to think that it should be used exclusively when, in fact, it violates the rules of weather observing according to the FMH-1 and to a lesser extent the FAA 7900. In addition, any computerized "tool" (like ALDARS) is great to have to enhance human senses, but should NEVER be used exclusively. Any knucklehead knows this, so why don't you? This is why weather observers (LAWRS not included) constantly verify the accuracy of all weather instruments at our stations, even in relatively benign weather. And believe it or not, they sometimes have to be turned off or their data modified. The instruments are only as good as the people who made them and write the programs and ALWAYS have limitations, not to mention breakdowns. This is why professional weather observers (certainly not LAWRS) augment and back-up data that ASOS spits out, not letting it transmit obvious and dangerous erroneous data and then complain to the guy who's telling you to "let it ride". This isn't poker, Ken! Also, the military uses ALDARS at their discretion (at both active duty and civilian bases, etc.). In other words, it is not tied directly in to their observations, but merely used to "possibly" enhance their observations if it is verified by the observer on duty that it is, in fact, valid. So don't go tooting your own horn about ALDARS being so wonderful that even the military uses it to exclusively get them lightning/thunderstorm data and no one being allowed to change or turn off some of the garbage that it spits out. That's just not true pal. You seem to want to make your own rules as you see fit to reach your end-goal, but you have no real authority. You're a public servant doing a lousy job working for the FAA. This is why the crap that spews out of your posts and your memos will never make it to writing in the 7900 and certainly not the FMH-1. It's all your own, twisted logic and everyone sees right through it. People are on to you and your buddies in DC and they're not going to stand for it. My advice to you is to resign to another position or "retire" (which is what people do when they are particularly inept at their jobs in government). In the private world, they just get fired. One final note is: If anyone thinks that ASOS will ever run by itself or think that LAWRS will take over any more weather sites, all I can say is "good luck with that" too! You will need to convince all your aforementioned agencies that the antiquated machine we call ASOS is superior to humans and that LAWRS observers actually give a shit. So you can take your snide remarks on this subject and stick them where the sun don't shine! Have a nice weekend, Ken. skobie PS - if you'd like to further discuss this matter in private, as always feel free to PM me.
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Sept 9, 2016 16:31:11 GMT -5
a TS that never began...ends at 1900Z.
KBTR 091953Z 24006KT 8SM -TSRA SCT027 BKN047 OVC065 27/24 A2999 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT NE AND SW RAB15 TSE00B06 SLP156 P0044 T02670239 KBTR 091906Z 09010KT 10SM TS BKN035 31/23 A2999 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT E TSE00B06 T03060233 KBTR 091853Z 10008KT 10SM BKN035 32/22 A3000 RMK AO2 SLP155 T03170222
|
|
sunny9
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by sunny9 on Sept 9, 2016 22:01:08 GMT -5
A comment on "The big issue with ALDARS is the false positives (200 miles away lightning strikes being "in the vicinity") and the time delays (leading to severe winds with rain during severe events)" from alstein.
My observation is that the false positives are coming only from AWOS stations. Most AWOS stations are not a part of the ALDARS network. Each AWOS site has its local on-site lightning sensor, and these sensors are completely inaccurate, often reporting VCTS or LTG DSNT for LTG which is one state away. Over the period of many months I can remember only 1 false TS at our ASOS site, and I have never seen an ALDARS ASOS falsely report LTG DSNT for LTG more than 30nm away. So I believe that the false positives for LTG hundreds of miles away is only an AWOS problem.
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Sept 10, 2016 1:30:15 GMT -5
actually...the FAA is doing the CWO's a favor by insisting we NOT delete the... LTG DSNT N ...ALDARS generated remarks. on top of that I have added...OCNL LTGICCG DSNT N CB DSNT N MOV S. so in remarks you will see LTG DSNT N OCNL LTGICCG DSNT N CB DSNT N MOV S. see my point?
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Sept 12, 2016 17:10:56 GMT -5
our accurate aldars generated a ONE MINUTE THUNDERSTORM early sat am...
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Sept 13, 2016 7:06:17 GMT -5
Someone tell FAA HQ: Just another tool of many. Not to be used as gospel. This isn't terminator yet.....
|
|