TAF and TREND Verification

Similar documents
Terminal aerodrome forecast verification in Austro Control using time windows and ranges of forecast conditions

The Role of Meteorological Forecast Verification in Aviation. Günter Mahringer, November 2012

Implementation Guidance of Aeronautical Meteorological Observer Competency Standards

TAF CCCC YYGGggZ YYHHHH dddff(f)gffkt VVVVSM [ww NNNhhh] [Wshhh/dddffKT] [TTTTT xxxx] repeated as needed

Guidance on Aeronautical Meteorological Observer Competency Standards

CMO Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF) Verification Programme (CMOTafV)

Issue of SIGMET/AIRMET warning

CAS & CAeM Aviation Research and Demonstration Project Paris-CDG airport

Aerodrome Forecast (TAF)

<Operational nowcasting systems in the framework of the 4-D MeteoCube>

AERODROME METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATION AND FORECAST STUDY GROUP (AMOFSG)

TAF Decoder Courtesy of the Aviation Weather Center

Effective: SPECI ALERTING

Implementation Guidance of Aeronautical Meteorological Forecaster Competency Standards

New Meteorological Services Supporting ATM

TERMINAL AERODROME FORECAST

Verification and performance measures of Meteorological Services to Air Traffic Management (MSTA)

Displaying the Verification Results of Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts for Thunderstorms and Visibility

Categorical Verification

Verification of nowcasts and short-range forecasts, including aviation weather

Aerodrome Reports and Forecasts

Issue of SIGMET/AIRMET warning part II

Deutscher Wetterdienst

FREEZING CONTAMINATION : AIRCRAFT ICING

Aviation Weather Reports

DROUGHT FORECASTING IN CROATIA USING STANDARDIZED PRECIPITATION INDEX (SPI)

ECMWF 10 th workshop on Meteorological Operational Systems

Verification of wind forecasts of ramping events

AERODROME METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATION AND FORECAST STUDY GROUP (AMOFSG)

Verification of the operational NWP models at DWD - with special focus at COSMO-EU

Network Severe Weather Programme

WMO Aeronautical Meteorology Scientific Conference 2017

Meteorological CLEAR BUT PRESENT DANGER

Generating probabilistic capacity scenarios from weather forecast: A design-of-experiment approach. Gurkaran Singh Buxi Mark Hansen

AW - Aviation Weather

Weather Information for Europe 3 May 2018

Section 7: Hazard Avoidance

5.4 USING PROBABILISTIC FORECAST GUIDANCE AND AN UPDATE TECHNIQUE TO GENERATE TERMINAL AERODROME FORECASTS

Application and verification of ECMWF products 2015

Detective Miss Marple in Murder at the Gallop. 3rd verification workshop, ECMWF 2007, Göber

GEN 3.5 METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES

Use of lightning data to improve observations for aeronautical activities

System Wide Information Management. Peder Blomqvist (LFV) Xavier Jourdain (Thales)

WMO Aeronautical Meteorology Scientific Conference 2017

Plan for operational nowcasting system implementation in Pulkovo airport (St. Petersburg, Russia)

Severe Weather Watches, Advisories & Warnings

WMO/ICAO AMF Competencies

Validation of Forecasts (Forecast Verification) Overview. Ian Jolliffe

Current verification practices with a particular focus on dust

AMDAR Forecast Applications. Richard Mamrosh NWS Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA

540 THE UTILIZATION OF CURRENT FORECAST PRODUCTS IN A PROBABILISTIC AIRPORT CAPACITY MODEL

Denver International Airport MDSS Demonstration Verification Report for the Season

STUDY UNIT SEVENTEEN GRAPHICAL AIRMAN S METEOROLOGICAL ADVISORY (G-AIRMET)

Accuracy in Predicting GDPs and Airport Delays from Weather Forecast Data

Montréal, 7 to 18 July 2014

Flight Dispatcher Aviation Meteorology Required Knowledge

WMO Aeronautical Meteorology Scientific Conference 2017

Wind verification with DIST method: preliminary results. Maria Stefania Tesini Offenbach - 6 September 2016 COSMO General Meeting

Basic Verification Concepts

WAFS_Word. 2. Menu. 2.1 Untitled Slide

Evaluation of Ensemble Icing Probability Forecasts in NCEP s SREF, VSREF and NARRE-TL Systems

Localized Aviation Model Output Statistics Program (LAMP): Improvements to convective forecasts in response to user feedback

Jarrod Lichty, R. S. Lee, and S. Percic AvMet Applications, Inc., Reston, Va.

Verification of ensemble and probability forecasts

METEOROLOGY PANEL (METP) WORKING GROUP- METEOROLOGICAL OPERATION GROUP (MOG) FIRST MEETING

Aeronautical Information Service

Application and verification of ECMWF products 2008

How to issue SIGMET. SIGMET Seminar for Asia/Pacific Region Bangkok, Thailand, July 2007

Revisiting predictability of the strongest storms that have hit France over the past 32 years.

Information Note on the Webpage for Significant Convection Monitoring and Forecast

CHAPTER 9 - SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS

Low visibility and ceiling forecasts at Schiphol Part 1 assessment of the current system

Weather Forecasting Principles I

Introduction to NCEP's time lagged North American Rapid Refresh Ensemble Forecast System (NARRE-TL)

Concepts of Forecast Verification FROST-14

Verification of the operational NWP models at DWD - with special focus at COSMO-EU. Ulrich Damrath

J th Conference on Aviation, Range, and Aerospace Meteorology, 90th AMS Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, Jan, 2010

Application and verification of ECMWF products 2016

Answer Key. Page 1 of 5

MACIS documentation. a. Temporal resolution: For each month and the hole year

Weather Considerations for UAS Integration

IMS4 ARWIS. Airport Runway Weather Information System. Real-time data, forecasts and early warnings

Drought forecasting methods Blaz Kurnik DESERT Action JRC

Applying Statistical Tool CLIPER in Forecasting Visibility at Airports

NWP in aviation: CAT diagnostics

AERODROME METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATION AND FORECAST STUDY GROUP (AMOFSG)

Forecast Verification Analysis of Rainfall for Southern Districts of Tamil Nadu, India

VALIDATION RESULTS OF THE OPERATIONAL LSA-SAF SNOW COVER MAPPING

WORLD AREA FORECAST SYSTEM OPERATIONS GROUP (WAFSOPSG)

SAMPLE ASSESSMENT TASKS AVIATION ATAR YEAR 12

DATA FUSION NOWCASTING AND NWP

AERODROME METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATION AND FORECAST STUDY GROUP (AMOFSG)

Evolving Meteorological Services for the Terminal Area

TECHNICAL REPORT (ONLINE)

Ensemble forecast and verification of low level wind shear by the NCEP SREF system

Basic Verification Concepts

Spatial Forecast Verification Methods

CHARACTERISATION OF STORM SEVERITY BY USE OF SELECTED CONVECTIVE CELL PARAMETERS DERIVED FROM SATELLITE DATA

'$1,6+0(7(252/2*,&$/,167,787(

Winter-Weather Forecast Research

Transcription:

TAF and TREND Verification Guenter Mahringer and Horst Frey, Austro Control, Aviation MET Service Linz, A-4063 Hoersching, Austria. guenter.mahringer@austrocontrol.at

The TAF Verification Concept A TAF (Terminal Aerodrome Forecast) gives forecasts of wind, visibility, preyent weather and cloud conditions for an airport. Ranges of possible values or states are forecast for most weather elements in classes. A TAF is essentially a forecast for time periods. The shortest applicable time period is 1 hour. Using change groups (BECMG, TEMPO, PROBx, FM), the ranges of forecast values can be extended to 2 or more classes. All observations valid for the respective hour are used fro verification. These observations display a range of conditions lying in 1 or more classes. For each hour, the best and worst forecast / observed classes are compared.

TAF VISIBILITY: Example (1) TAF 0615 0700 Forecast and observed TEMPO 0609 0200 Forecast BECMG 0911 4000 Observed FM1200 9999 VIS \ TIME 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 OBS H+20 OBS H+50 1800 0100 0500 0300 1700 3500 8000 9999 6000 0300 0400 0400 1000 2300 6000 9999 9999 0300 Forecast and observed VIS classes VIS \ TIME 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 5000-9999 3000 - <5000 1500 - <3000 0800 - <1500 0600 - <0800 0350 - <0600 0150 - <0350 0000 - <0150

TAF VISIBILITY: Example (2) VIS Class FCST \ OBS 0000 - <0150 0150 - <0350 0350 - <0600 Contingency table for Maximum VIS classes 0000- <0150 0150- <0350 0350- <0600 0600- <0800 0800- <1500 1500- <3000 0600 - <0800 2 1 0800 - <1500 1500 - <3000 3000- <5000 3000 - <5000 1 1 1 5000-9999 3 5000-9999

TAF VISIBILITY: Example (3) VIS Class FCST \ OBS 0000 - <0150 Contingency table for Minimum VIS classes 0000- <0150 0150- <0350 0350- <0600 0150 - <0350 1 1 1 0350 - <0600 0600- <0800 0800- <1500 0600 - <0800 1 1 0800 - <1500 1500 - <3000 1500- <3000 3000- <5000 3000 - <5000 1 1 5000-9999 1 1 5000-9999

TAF VISIBILITY: Example (4) Examples of Scores for Class Thresholds Maximum VIS < or 1500m Minimum VIS < or 350m ORSS = 0,82 ORSS = 0,60 HSS = 0,50 HSS = 0,31 PSS = 0,50 PSS = 0,30 Scores For n * n Contingency Tables: - Gerrity Score GS (Jolliffe and Stephenson, 2003) - Percent above/below diagonal - Heidke Skill Score HSS, Peirce Skill Score PSS For 2 * 2 Contingency Tables: - Odds Ratio Skill Score (ORSS), - Bias, Hit Rate (H), False Alarm Ratio (FAR) - Heidke Skill Score HSS, Peirce Skill Score PSS

Treatment of Weather Elements (1) VISIBILITY and CEILING are verified using classes (see example). PRESENT WEATHER is verified similar to classes. Mutually exclusive groups of weather phenomena are defined according to climatological frequency and effect on flight operations. Scores are computed separately for each group. For Austria, we use the following groups: No significant weather Freezing fog Moderate or heavy liquid precipitation Moderate or heavy solid precipitation Blowing or drifting snow Freezing precipitation Thunderstorm (or Squall line, Funnel cloud)

Treatment of Weather Elements (2) Following national regulations, WIND SPEED and WIND GUSTS are verified using classes in Austria. WIND DIRECTION is verified using deviation criteria (see figure): If the OBS wind direction lies within 30 of any FCST wind direction, it is counted correct (see ICAO Annex 3, Attachment B). If the OBS wind speed is < 7kt, the FCST wind direction is counted correct in any case. Area of correct FCST Wind direction for ff (obs) < 7kt 360 7kt Area of correct FCST Wind direction for ff (obs) 7kt 270 090 30 OBS direction 180

Treatment of Change Groups All TAF change groups (BECMG, FM, TEMPO, PROB, PROB TEMPO) are used to define the range of values forecast for the period indicated. FM GGgg is verified as change within the hour GG. TEMPO, PROB, PROB TEMPO can optionally be disregarded for verification. This faciliates user oriented verification runs as PROB TEMPO is frequently disregarded in Airline flight planning procedures.

First Results (1) TAF VIS LOWL 09-11/2006 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 GS Maxima GS Max Mean GS Minima GS Min Mean 0,00 H+1 H+2 H+3 H+4 H+5 H+6 H+7 H+8 H+9

First Results (2) TAF VIS for Austrian Airports GS 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 LOWW LOWL LOWS LOWI** LOWG LOWK* GS Max GS Min * LOWK: No VIS <150m observed ** LOWI: No VIS <1500m observed

First Results (3) TAF Ceiling LOWL 09-11/2006 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 GS Maxima GS Max Mean GS Minima GS Min Mean 0,00 H+1 H+2 H+3 H+4 H+5 H+6 H+7 H+8 H+9

First Results (4) TAF Present Weather LOWL: Moderate or heavy liquid precipitation as "worst" condition Contingency table Scores FCST\OBS NO YES SUM ORSS= 0,94 PC= 0,92 NO 4130 17 4147 PSS= 0,65 H= 0,73 YES 345 45 390 HSS= 0,18 FAR= 0,88 SUM 4475 62 4537 TSS= 0,11 Bias= 6,29

The TREND Verification Concept The validity time of a TREND forecast is 2 hours. In TREND forecasts, changes in - wind, - visibility, - present weather, - clouds (ceiling) are forecast which are significant for aircraft operations.

Criteria for significant changes VISIBILITY, CEILING HEIGHT: transition from above or below through significant values (ICAO Annex 3, App. 5): Visibility: 150m, 350m, 600m, 800m, 1500m, 3000m, 5000m Ceiling: 100ft, 200ft, 500ft, 1000ft, 1500ft Significant Wind Changes 7kt 10kt 40 - Wind direction change > 40 (if speed 7kt) - Wind speed change 10kt Forecast quality criteria: ±30, ±5kt (ICAO Annex 3, Attachment B) SIGNIFICANT WEATHER CHANGES: BEGINNING AND END OF - Freezing fog - Moderate or heavy liquid precipitation - Moderate/heavy solid precipitation - Blowing or drifting snow - Freezing precipitation - Thunderstorm, squall line, funnel cloud)

Verification of significant changes For verification, we use 2 * 2 contingency tables and appropriate scores (see TAF). The TRENDs are verified by investigating if certain significant changes were: VIS FCST (but not OBS) 5000m OBS and FCST 3000m 1500m 800m 600m FCST OBS OBS (but not FCST) not OBS, not FCST 350m 150m 2 hours

TREND Verification Results for Austrian Airports, period: 09-11/2006 1,00 0,80 Odds Ratio Skill Scores (ORSS) Weighted: by the number of OBS significant changes ORSS 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 VIS CLD WX Wind Mean Weighted LOWW LOWL LOWS LOWI LOWG LOWK