On March 23, 1998, at the Science Team Meeting in Tucson, Arizona, the IOP Coordination Breakout Session took place. The purpose of the breakout was to discuss the lessons learned from the 1997 Fall Integrated IOP. That IOP was comprised of six concurrent IOPs: Cloud, Shortwave, Radiation, Aerosol, UAV, and SCM IOPs.
Bob Ellingson (UAV IOP) talked about the forecasting and aircraft coordination at Ponca City. Mike Splitt did an outstanding job of forecasting and posted it on the web site for all. The initial problem at the Blackwell/Tonkawa location was that the web browser service provided (Netscape) was not compatible with the UAV software (Showme), which was ultimately corrected. Coordination of activities around flight schedules was tough. Length of time for UAV to get airborne was much longer than conventional aircraft. Conventional aircraft could therefore respond more quickly to rapidly changing meteorological conditions. Also, the UAV aircraft operating out of Blackwell/Tonkawa were somewhat isolated from aircraft based at Ponca City, something that cannot be avoided due to airport limitations.
Pete Daum (Aerosol and conventional aircraft coordinator) reported that there was excellent coordination between conventional aircraft, FAA, and Vance Air Force Base officials. He attributed this to the highly professional attitudes by all the pilots and groups involved. The setup logistics (phones) at Ponca City was good.
Hank Revercomb (Water Vapor and kite/kytoon logistics). Overall, no real problems with the Water Vapor IOP activities. The kite/kytoon operations took a while to sort out. Although some pilots appreciated the search lights at night to illuminate the kite/kytoon, some pilots found the search lights a distraction when doing spirals (re: light was in their eyes). But radio contact with the surface controlled local pilot issues.
Low level jet conditions are the primary hazard for kites/kytoon operations. Forecasts for probability of low level jets were provided, but operations wanted to fly to see if the jets were really present. Safety was a concern. The issues were resolved but could have been addresses earlier before issues became issues. Controls were established and documented in the IOP implementation plan.
Ken Sasson (Lidar operations) applied for the FAA approval for his lidar operations and coordination with the FAA was fairly good. The Penn State lidar arrived and was found to be unexpectedly non-eye safe up to about 3 km. FAA application was filed late and contributed to FAA concerns and confusion over operational schedules of both lidars. Early planning would have eliminated some, if not, most of the difficulties. The FAA was also somewhat internally confused over the lidar issues, which were ultimately straightened out. Most important information for the FAA is not only when lidars are operating, but also when they are down and not operating.
Jay Mace (Cloud IOP and overall IOP coordinator). Never do another Cloud IOP in September. September suffers from severe clear. We are still learning about how to do in-cloud flights. The difficulties are understanding how to perform flights in clouds when sampling rates and instrument detection limits do not match cloud properties (re: cloud particle concentrations are relatively low).
It was good to have a variety of aircraft (Citation, King Air, and G-1) to meet the rapidly changing meteorological conditions. Also, some of the IOPs required clear skies, others cloudy conditions. Having such extreme situations and each requiring aircraft support was a challenge. The balance of flight times was difficult. But, the wide variety of aircraft types and good cooperation made the potential conflicts easier to resolve.
Ted Cress reported that overall, the pre-planning discussion of aircraft/lidar/kite/kytoon operations with FAA and Vance Air Force Base officials really allowed for a high rate of success in gaining permission for day-to-day operational requests. We have developed a good reputation with local officials.
Jay Mace (Cloud radar issues) – because of the bug reflectivity problem with radars warm season cloud studies can be problematic. Although warm season cloud studies are problematic for the cloud radar, cold season cloud studies are problematic for aircraft due to icing. Need to find time periods that minimize both concerns for cloud studies.
Warren Wiscombe (Shortwave IOP) provided several comments.
Shortwave instrumentation calibrations in the field are critical. The Li-COR calibration instrument provided by Ted Cress proved to be extremely valuable.
Complicated instruments that need to be maintained (i.e., Raman Lidar, Micropulse lidar, cloud radar, etc.) may require either (1) highly skilled technicians; (2) better training to our current technical staff; or (3) subcontracts in place for fast response for repairs. No clear recommendation was provided, but the potential problem needs to be addressed.
Shortwave spectrometers are not stand-alone instruments and those scientists operating such systems should not leave them unattended during critical observational periods. (re: ASD went down and never really recovered).
Although not related to this IOP, replacement hot spares versus parts for instruments at the TWP is a critical issue. This was not resolved at this meeting.
Having the R-1 system was great not only for near-real-time data displays, but also for near-real-time comparison of data versus models (in this case SPDART Model).
Need near-real-time spectral data comparisons.
Need to obtain spectral surface albedo information. We can’t depend upon the NASA helicopter. We are missing potentially important information when only making broadband albedo estimates. Need surface albedo measurements on larger spatial scales.
Need to pay more attention to MFRs (downward pointing), especially performing calibrations.
If we are going to fly radiometers on aircraft, make sure they are fully calibrated and carefully mounted, or do not bother mounting them on an aircraft. (The G-1 will have recently calibrated and well-mounted MFRs on board for this summer’s activities at the SGP CART Site).
Steve Schillar’s spectral instrument provides spectral measurements as a function of angle. This instrument may be very useful.
Get the CSPHOT to do angular measurements.
Doug Sisterson (Site Operations and planning activities). The IOP Implementation Plan was an excellent document to collect operational activities. The problem is much of the information came late and many of the issues that occurred (second non-eye safe lidar, kite/kytoon operations in low-level jet conditions, search lights, etc.) were not captured until well into the IOP. More timely information for the planning document will help to reduce confusion when issues arise.
An electronics lab, a temperature and humidity calibration chamber, increased on-site storage space, and the use of local cellular phones with far less fancy options and far better operating instructions are being planned for the SGP Central Facility locations.
Also, an on-site scientist has been hired. Chad Bahrmann joined the Site Scientist Team in October and resides in Ponca City. His presence will aid IOPs and data quality issues at the SGP CART Site.
Overall, the planning and coordination efforts for this mega IOP were quite good. The overall logistics were adequate. Given the complexity of combined IOP activities, the operational surprises were few and more of an inconvenience than a show-stopper.