1 / 16

New developments in the Graphical Turbulence Guidance (GTG) product

Aviation Turbulence Workshop NCAR 28 Aug 2013 Robert Sharman NCAR/RAL Boulder, CO USA sharman@ucar.edu. New developments in the Graphical Turbulence Guidance (GTG) product. Turbulence forecasting – What are we predicting?. PIREP. “Aircraft scale” eddies that affect aircraft

aricin
Download Presentation

New developments in the Graphical Turbulence Guidance (GTG) product

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aviation Turbulence Workshop NCAR 28 Aug 2013 Robert Sharman NCAR/RAL Boulder, CO USA sharman@ucar.edu New developments in the Graphical Turbulence Guidance (GTG) product

  2. Turbulence forecasting – What are we predicting? PIREP • “Aircraft scale” eddies that affect aircraft • Aircraft response is aircraft dependent but this is what pilot reports: “light”, “moderate”, “severe” • CANNOT forecast these levels for every aircraft in the airspace • Instead need atmospheric turbulence measure (i.e. aircraft independent measure) • We forecast EDR (= ε1/3 m 2/3s-1 ) • ICAO standard • Can relate to airborne and remote EDR estimates • Can relate EDR to aircraft loads (σg ~ε1/3 ) • Convenient scale 0-1 • For reference ICAO standard thresholds (2001,2010 ) for mid-sized aircraft are • EDR=0.10, 0.3, 0.5 for “light”, “moderate”, “severe”, resp. • EDR=0.10, 0.4, 0.7 for “light”, “moderate”, “severe”, resp. EDR

  3. Graphical Turbulence Guidance (GTG) • Computes an ensemble of turbulence diagnostics (Ds) from NWP model output • Each D is converted to EDR (D*) • GTG=Ensemble weighted mean of D*s • Typically 10-15 Ds in suite • Contours displayed on ADDS as EDR from ICAO (2001) recommendation: • Current version is GTG2.5, will be upgraded (GTG3) in late 2014 to include low-levels and MWT • Common Fortran77 core to compute indices (AR WRF, WRF RAP, RUC, GFS, UKMET, ECMWF, COSMO) GTG = W1D1* + W2D2* + W3D3* + …. Ensemble mean available on Operational ADDS (GTG2.5) (http://aviationweather.gov/adds) 0-12 hr lead times, updated hourly 10,000 ft-FL450

  4. Some common turbulence diagnostics Frontogenesis function (good at upper levels) Dutton Empirical Index Unbalanced flow (Koch et al., McCann, Knox et al.) Deformation X shear (Ellrod) Eddy dissipation rate (ε1/3) computed from second order structure functions of velocity and/or temperature

  5. GTG ε1/3 (EDR)CAT, MWT31 Dec 2011 6-hr fcst valid 18 UTC FL290 WRF RAP GTG MAX(CAT,MWT) GTG MWT GTG CAT

  6. Conversion of diagnostics to EDR • EDR distributions are observed to be ~ log-normal • Fit diagnostic distributions (PDF) to observed EDR distributions (aircraft data) “Moderate” “Severe” PACDEX <logεw1/3 >=-2.7 SD[log εw1/3 ] = 0.27 DAL in situ EDR data <logε1/3 >=-2.85 SD[log ε1/3 ] = 0.57

  7. Conversion of diagnostics to EDR (cont.) Rescale diagnostic D to EDR Where a and b are chosen to give best fit to expected lognormal distribution in the higher ranges a and b depend on 7

  8. Relation of EDR to PIREPs for medium-sized aircraft (B737,B757) Compared PIREPs to EDR data • 3.8 min • 70 km • 1200 ft Fit medians with EDR=C P2 : • DAL: C=0.0143 • UAL: C=0.0138 ICAO thresholds: • Light (2) = 0.10 • Moderate (4) = 0.40 • Severe (6) = 0.70 New Threshold Values based on data (median values): • Light (2): 0.06 (<0.1) • Moderate (4): 0.22 (0.1-0.25) • Severe (6): 0.5 (0.1-0.7) Courtesy Julia Pearson

  9. Relation to other aircraft severe Courtesy Larry Cornman

  10. GTG3 POD curves 6-hr fcst (2 years)using both PIREPs and in situ EDR data + 60 min from forecast valid time High h>20,000 ft Mid h=10-20,000 ft Low h<10,000 ft

  11. GTG MWT POD curves High h>20,000 ft Mid h=10-20,000 ft Low h<10,000 ft

  12. GFS Global GTG UKMET ECMWF GTG output based on 3 global models for the same case. Contours are EDR (m2/3 s-1) at FL290 31 Dec 2011 6-hr fcst valid 18Z All models used native vertical grids All models used same number of diagnostics All models used same thresholds

  13. GTG Prob > light Prob > mod Prob > severe Use of indices as ensembles provides confidence values (or uncalibrated probabilities) Red=.75 Red=.30 Red=.30 0 h forecast valid at 22 Sep 2006 15Z

  14. Turbulence EDR Nowcast 3D grid (GTGN) Turbulence nowcast product (GTGN) Gridded Forecasts Numerical Weather Prediction Model Turbulence EDR Forecast Model (GTG) Turbulence inferences DCIT algorithm Real-time Turbulence observations Satellite features • Airborne observations • In-situ EDR • PIREPs Lightning Aircraft Deviations ASDI, ADSB • Ground-based • observations • NTDA mosaic Update interval 15 min

  15. GTGN Example: Components & Output: 20100813 at 22z FL380 GTG 1hr Fcst NEXRAD Reflectivity In situ, Pireps (1 hr prior) & NTDA GTGN & Next 15min In situ

  16. Summary and future work This research is in response to requirements and funding by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the FAA. 16 • Using an ensemble of turbulence diagnostics (GTG) instead of one diagnostic gives more robust performance • Technique can be used with any input NWP model • GTGN being developed, initial results are promising • GTG AUC 0.845, GTGN AUC 0.897 • Longer term goals • Provide probabilistic forecasts • Ensembles (NWP + indices) • Logistic regression or random forest • Probability of what? • Forecast convective turbulence • Include satellite feature detectors in GTGN

More Related