1 / 22

Collaborative Convective Forecast Product “CCFP”

The goal of the CCFP evaluation was to enhance the decision-making process in the aviation sector by reducing delays, reroutes, and cancellations due to convective events. The methods included production, quantitative, and qualitative assessments to determine the effectiveness and usefulness of CCFP. Results showed positive feedback on the utility and accuracy of CCFP. Next steps involve finalizing the evaluation report, securing funding for future operational use, and establishing production frequency. For further information, contact Kevin Browne, Mark Phaneuf, or Denny Nestoros.

bsnyder
Download Presentation

Collaborative Convective Forecast Product “CCFP”

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. Collaborative Convective Forecast Product “CCFP” Kevin Browne FAA ARW-100 Mark Phaneuf CygnaCom Solutions Denny Nestoros CygnaCom Solutions October 13, 1999 CygnaCom Solutions, Inc. u Suite 100 West, 7927 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA 22102-3305 u (703) 848-0883

  2. Agenda • Goal/Purpose • Evaluation methods • Evaluation results • Next steps

  3. Goal/Purpose • GOAL • Improve the decision making process within the CDM framework and lead to reduction in delays, reroutes and cancellations influenced by convective events • PURPOSE • A test program to evaluate the CCFP in an operational setting to determine its usefulness in aiding the decision making process for ATC service providers and airlines with the CDM framework

  4. Evaluation Methods • Production assessment • Quantitative assessment • Qualitative assessment being done by Forecast Systems Lab (FSL) • Questionnaire

  5. Production Assessment • The objective of this phase of the evaluation was to determine how well the coordination process worked and what procedures were needed to improve it

  6. Production Assessment Continued • Production Assessment • Number of participants • Number of messages • Number of iterations • Number of agreements • Number of agreements by default • Number of disagreements • Length of collaboration • Trends

  7. Quantitative Evaluation Method • Quantitative Assessment • Historical baseline • Certain days from 1999 that will show traffic movement and deviations from their filed flight plan during non-CCFP days. • Tracks time of delay from flight-plan route • Current Procedures with CCFP • Certain days from 1999 data with similar representation showing movement and deviations but comparing how it was handled with CCFP using POET’s data mining tools • This analysis will evaluate the differences between system performance under the current procedures (the baseline) versus the system performance with the CCFP

  8. Quantitative Evaluation Method Continued • Quantitative Assessment Continued • Four specific areas will be evaluated: • Delays attributable to weather • Net deviation (in time) from planned arrival time caused by weather • Number of cancellations • Number of diversions

  9. Quantitative Results

  10. Questionnaire • There were three objective questions on the questionnaire that were designed to gather information for the operational evaluation: • (5) Did you use the CCFP for planning purposes? • (6) The CCFP was useful for planning purposes? • (7) The CCFP was reflective of weather conditions?

  11. Questionnaire Results • Results from question number (5) Did you use the CCFP for planning purposes? • 60% used the CCFP for planning purposes • 23% reported they did not use CCFP for planning purposes • 3% abstained from answering this question • Results from question number (6) The CCFP was useful for planning purposes? • Over 57% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed • 33% of respondents had no opinion • 10% disagreed or strongly disagreed

  12. Questionnaire Results, Continued • Results from question (7) The CCFP was reflective of weather conditions? • 71% indicated that the CCFP was often accurate • 8% indicated that the CCFP was always accurate • 14% indicated that the CCFP was seldom accurate • 2% indicated never accurate • Approximately 5% abstained from answering

  13. Next Steps • Complete evaluation report • Identify funding for next year and beyond if the product becomes operational • Determine the product output and how often it will be generated • Training

  14. Points of Contact • Kevin Browne FAA ARW-100 kevin.browne@faa.gov (202) 366-1066 • Mark Phaneuf CygnaCom Solutions, Inc. mphaneuf@cygnacom.com (703) 848-0883 • Denny Nestoros CygnaCom Solutions, Inc. dnestoros@cygnacom.com

More Related