Post by TCU 2U2 on Mar 16, 2013 6:39:40 GMT -5
The study done by the FAA in 2009 by The Office of Enterprise Solutions may come into play here.
Still trying to track down the full report, but if you recall it was done with the FAA attempting to turn over the program to LAWRS.
Alot of numbers thrown about and the sites used in the report were already C level and the report attemped to show how what is currently done at A and B sites could be done at C sites.
Showed what is done during an edit and how little time would be involved by the controllers ... again, you are talking C level when days may go by with them only touching the keyboard to sign on and off ...
The conclusion in part was that freezing and frozen precipitation would be issues. Report had one ATM (if my memory serves me correctly) at a C level saying in effect that " when we feel there is freezing precpitation we will go out on the catwalk to check by looking at the handrails" ...
We know that ice pellets have never been tackled by ASOS, nor has the mixed bag of 2 or 3 types of precipitation occurring at the same time ...
Anyway .. there was a target of how much and when the program could be turned over and the report mentioned FY12 / FY13 - but did not discuss what would have to be done between the time the report was completed in 2009 and FY12 / FY13 for the turnover to be accomplished.
Improvements in automation would be a good guess ... but what has changed, especially in the areas of most concern in the report, freezing and frozen precipitation? .... Nothing.
In fact, it was not long after this report that the the contract weather program began to develop what is now the preformance monitoring reports that are done at each site.
Gives a much clearer picture of what work (augmentation / backup) is done at each site to ensure a proper observation is reported.
These numbers alone will stand tall against the 2009 report.
Still trying to track down the full report, but if you recall it was done with the FAA attempting to turn over the program to LAWRS.
Alot of numbers thrown about and the sites used in the report were already C level and the report attemped to show how what is currently done at A and B sites could be done at C sites.
Showed what is done during an edit and how little time would be involved by the controllers ... again, you are talking C level when days may go by with them only touching the keyboard to sign on and off ...
The conclusion in part was that freezing and frozen precipitation would be issues. Report had one ATM (if my memory serves me correctly) at a C level saying in effect that " when we feel there is freezing precpitation we will go out on the catwalk to check by looking at the handrails" ...
We know that ice pellets have never been tackled by ASOS, nor has the mixed bag of 2 or 3 types of precipitation occurring at the same time ...
Anyway .. there was a target of how much and when the program could be turned over and the report mentioned FY12 / FY13 - but did not discuss what would have to be done between the time the report was completed in 2009 and FY12 / FY13 for the turnover to be accomplished.
Improvements in automation would be a good guess ... but what has changed, especially in the areas of most concern in the report, freezing and frozen precipitation? .... Nothing.
In fact, it was not long after this report that the the contract weather program began to develop what is now the preformance monitoring reports that are done at each site.
Gives a much clearer picture of what work (augmentation / backup) is done at each site to ensure a proper observation is reported.
These numbers alone will stand tall against the 2009 report.
