# Presentation: 533631

## Environment Canada

**“*****CMC Monitoring of GLFE TAMDAR Data”***

- Gilles Verner, Yulia Zaitseva, Réal Sarrazin / Gilles Fournier
- Canadian Meteorological Centre / AMWSD**                                         **

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Outline

- Background on CMC models and monitoring
- Status of Canadian AMDAR Program Development
- Plans for the Future
- Monitoring of AMDAR data at CMC
- Monitoring of GLFE-TAMDAR at CMC
- Conclusion and Discussion

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Background on CMC models and monitoring

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## CMC Operational Models

**Global Model**

**Regional Model**

-  Uniform grid
-  Resolution of .9o (~100 km)
-  28 eta levels
-  Kuo convection scheme
-  Sundqvist stratiform scheme
-  Force-restore surface module
-   with climatogical soil moisture
-  10 day forecasts at 00Z
-    and 6 day forecasts at 12Z.
-  Cut-off of T+3h00

- Variable resolution grid
- Resolution of .1375o (~15 km)
-  58 eta levels
-  Kain-Fritsch scheme
-  Sundqvist stratiform scheme
-  ISBA surface module with
- soil moisture pseudo-analysis
- (error feedback, no data)
-  48-hour forecasts (00Z -12Z)
-  Cut-off of T+1h40

- GEM model used for both global and regional versions
- 4D-var assimilation for global system as of March 15, 2005
- Regional system still using 3D-Var

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Distribution maps of aircraft observations assimilated in 6-hour period: 3D-VAR analysis

- CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Distribution maps of aircraft observations assimilated in 6-hour period: a) 3D-VAR analysis; b) 4D-VAR analysis. The amount of aircraft data assimilated in 4D-VAR has tripled compared to 3D-VAR! 
CMC will switch from the current 3D-VAR to a 4D-VAR assimilation system in the first quarter of 2005. The 4D-VAR introduces time as the fourth dimension of the data assimilation problem and allows observations to be assimilated in the model using their exact time of observation rather than using a single time point for all observations. This will allow observations occurring in the full 6-hour time window to be included, rather then the 3-hour sub-window used presently by the 3D-VAR. This will result in many more observations being assimilated, including almost 3 times as many for aircraft observations. This is evident by comparing this exhibit with next one that present aircraft data assimilated by CMC in the 3D-VAR and 4D-VAR assimilation systems respectively. 

## Distribution maps of aircraft observations assimilated in 6-hour period: 4D-VAR analysis

- The amount of aircraft data assimilated in 4D-VAR has tripled compared to 3D-VAR!

- CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Distribution maps of aircraft observations assimilated in 6-hour period: a) 3D-VAR analysis; b) 4D-VAR analysis. The amount of aircraft data assimilated in 4D-VAR (this exhibit) has tripled compared to 3D-VAR (previous exhibit)! 

## Data assimilated in 3D-VAR Analysis

- Global - Monthly mean number of assimilated observations per 24 hours over 6h- assimilation window: 3D-VAR analysis (green color –aircraft observations).

- CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Monthly mean number of assimilated observations per 24 hours over 6h- assimilation window: a) 3D-VAR analysis; b) 4D-VAR analysis (green color –aircraft observations). Note the almost uniform distribution of aircraft data during the 6 hour time period for the 4D-VAR 

## Data assimilated in 4D-VAR Analysis

- Global - Monthly mean number of assimilated observations per 24 hours over 6h- assimilation window: 4D-VAR analysis (green color –aircraft observations).

- CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Monthly mean number of assimilated observations per 24 hours over 6h- assimilation window: a) 3D-VAR analysis; b) 4D-VAR analysis (green color –aircraft observations). Note the almost uniform distribution of aircraft data during the 6 hour time period for the 4D-VAR 

## Status of Canadian AMDAR Program Development

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Development with AC Jazz 

-  AMDAR started with 21 AC Jazz DHC-8 100 in June 2002 but T bias issue
-  24 AC Jazz CRJs reporting good T and wind data on GTS (73 by March 06)
-  24 AC Jazz upgraded DHC-8 reporting good T and wind data (67 Nov 05)

- Development with AC Jazz

-  Canadian AMDAR data: assimilated at CMC
-  distributed on GTS since 4 Jan 05
-  displayed on FSL web since 12 Jan 2005
-  C&C operational since 3 Feb 2005

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
 ACARS = Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System
 ARINC = Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated

BACKGROUND - DEVELOPMENT WITH JAZZ:
 Writing of Canadian AMDAR specifications into ACARS datalink Universal Avionics Systems Corporation’s (UASC) UniLink UL-601 version 13.1, the avionics of the Air Canada Jazz’ DHC-8 aircraft.
 First aircraft with UL-601 13.1 began reporting in the fall of 2001.
 Unfortunately data received at CMC could not meet all AMDAR requirements due to the analog nature of the DHC-8 100 model.
 Problem could be partly resolved through software, resulting in UL-601 ver. 13.2.
 First data with 13.2 were received by CMC in mid-June 2002.  However it is Barometric Altitude (BAlt), not Pressure Altitude (PAlt) that is reported for altitude 18,000 feet and below (Palt and Balt not available at the same time).
 C-ADAS was successfully implemented at CMC in mid-July 2002.
 The data has not been released to the GTS yet as CMC has discovered an unacceptable positive T-bias out of the T probes of the 21 AMDAR-capable DHC-8 100.  A similar T bias was discovered at the same time in Europe with the DHC-8 Q400 aircraft flown by SAS.
 More on this issue later. 

## Sabre C&C System

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## FSL web-Canadian data, 24 hrs, 5 Apr 05

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Aircraft Profiles in Real-Time

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Development with First Air

-  First Proof Of Concept system about to be tested on a test B727
-  If test is positive and funds available, proceed with implementation on 8 aircraft by 31 March 06 and 6 in FY06/07

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Historical Background

- 4-phase development contract began in mid-2002:
- Phase 1 – feasibility analysis (completed by 31 March 2003):
- not economically and technically possible to upgrade each aircraft
- TAMDAR selected due to its promise to be easily adaptable to various aircraft configurations and requiring minimal certification
- Phase 2 – development of POC ISAT/TAMDAR/Internet (completed in Fall 2003)
- Phase 3 – POC system testing on a B727 (most of the delays - hope to be completed by 30 June 2005):
- certification by FAA and then Transport Canada generated significant delays
- lots of unexpected technical problems (GPS, data rates, calibration, First Air/Skytrack/AirDat priorities)
- capital procurement funding returned twice due to these delays
- Phase 4 – deployment on 15 aircraft (8 in FY05/06; 6 in FY06/07):
- if test is positive and funding available
- test to be difficult as, contrarily to GLFE, not much data in the north
- calibration request heavier than anticipated
- wind quality in the north is a big unknown
- a lot of the QC moved to the ground processing centre

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Projected Weekly Ascents/Descents

- Notes: 1. Includes expected CRJ and DHC-8 operated by Jazz and 15 aircraft operated by First Air
- 2. Does not cover WestJet and Air Canada
- 3. Canadian North would add 30% more data in North
- 4. AFIRS/UpTime would be deployed to fill holes

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Development with AFIRS/UpTime

-  AFIRS = Automated Flight Information and Reporting System
-  Independent datalink  system for small airlines that cannot afford ACARS
-  Per flight hour data fees – No upfront costs to clients
-  Partnership with TC’s Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) program
-  AMDAR capability was developed and tested on 3 HawkAir DHC-8s operating in BC (T-bias issue)

-  AMDAR system based on AMS AFIRS expected to be on all 5 B737 aircraft from Canadian North by 30 June 2005
-  A dedicated T/RH sensor integrated to AFIRS is being investigated

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
The Automated Flight Information Reporting System (AFIRS) is currently under development by AeroMechanical Services Ltd (AMS) of Calgary, Alberta.  The AFIRS model 220 (AFIRS 220) is an autonomous flight information collection and reporting system suitable for commercial aircraft applications. The system records flight data, generates data reports and automatically transmits them to the AMS UpTime Flight data center, which then relays them via a communications network to the aircraft operator’s flight operations base.
AFIRS monitors the various flight data recorder (FDR) databusses for primary flight parameters including engine times, flight and block times, fuel flow rates, as well as any exceedences occurring during startup, taxi and flight. AFIRS uses a set of rules, defined by the operator, to collect, process and transmit reports to the UpTime Flight Data Centre.  AFIRS uses a VHF satellite link to transfer the reports generated during the flight or upon completion of each flight. Depending on the satellite system used, flight data may be transmitted from almost anywhere on earth.
After the AFIRS reports are processed by UpTime, information may be sent out to the aircraft operator, or others, via e-mail, through the Internet or through a secure data line.  Depending on the application, it may also be possible to access flight information through a secure web site.  
Onboard memory in the AFIRS unit allows all flight data to be captured for future analysis, through a removable flash card. As well, through the integral GPS receiver, AFIRS is used to provide fleet wide airframe time references as well as aircraft startup and shut down locations.
In addition, AFIRS can monitor the aircraft FDR databus for AMDAR weather parameters.  These currently include air temperature, pressure altitude, indicated airspeed, magnetic heading and pitch and roll attitudes.  The on board GPS module supplies the longitude and latitude at the time of the observation, as well as the ground speed and ground track used to calculate wind speed and wind direction.  
The AFIRS installation kit consists of 3 main elements; the control unit, a satellite/GPS antenna pack, and the wiring harness. The control unit and antenna are mounted near the FDR location, generally located in the unpressurized tail section of the aircraft and are connected to the aircraft non-essential bus.  The AFIRS 220 installation kit is approved under a Transport Canada/FAA Supplemental Type Certificate, and comes with all materials required for proper installation including wiring materials and structural components. Installation is straightforward and can be accomplished during routine maintenance cycles such as overnights and 'A' checks. 
The AFIRS 220 system is currently installed and undergoing testing on 4 DHC-8 aircraft
Although similar to ACARS, AFIRS is not integrated with other aircraft systems.  Rather, it is designed to simply acquire data from the various aircraft databusses.  
The UpTime system automatically archives the data.
Another feature of the AFIRS / UpTime system is the ability to provide satellite text messaging to and from the flight deck.  This part of the system uses a Windows CE based PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) device as the communications interface.

## Plans for the Future

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Plans for the Future

- Impact studies of Canadian AMDAR data by CMC **and Canadian operational forecasters(?)** in FY05/06
- On-going activities:
- Internal development (CMC...)
- AC Jazz comms
- First Air comms; TAMDAR LCM
- AMS AFIRS/UpTime comms (Canadian North, HawkAir, etc.)
- WestJet, Air Canada... comms
- LCM for required non aircraft critical systems
- Remaining development activities:
- Implement on 15 First Air aircraft
- Expand coverage through AFIRS/UpTime
- AMDAR development on WestJet (B737 aircraft)
- AMDAR development on Air Canada Embraers ERJs
**Business Case to EC for the measurement of humidity**
- Aviation-related (icing, turbulence) – BC to NAV CANADA

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## BC to NAV CANADA

- Objectives: contribution of NAV CANADA sought on development and operation of:
- AMDAR turbulence reporting capacity;
- AMDAR icing reporting capacity;
- AMDAR Program on-going communication costs associated with expanding AMDAR coverage

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## AMDAR VS GEOSS

- AMDAR meets all global GEOSS requirements:
- Affordable
- Expandable
- Sustainable
- Global coverage
- International standards
- Can target observations
- Best global in-situ tropospheric data for satellite calibration
- Air Quality Sensing Load?
- Aircraft mesoscale network filling hi-res plume dispersion model in case of a NCB attack?

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring of AMDAR data at CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Aircraft Sensor Monitoring

- Meteorological Centres such as CMC that run Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models can monitor the performance of aircraft sensors used in AMDAR on a continuous and real-time basis
- Monitoring based on observed minus first guess values (innovations), as well as data rejection statistics, extracted from operational data assimilation system
- Monitoring is performed for individual aircrafts as well as by AMDAR programs (e.g. E-AMDAR, GLFE, etc).
- Time evolution of innovations, as well as their statistical distribution are extremely useful tools

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## QC techniques at CMC

- In CMC 3D and 4D-Var, data QC based on 2 checks:
- A simple background check (comparison with first guess, data are rejected if departure from first guess is larger than pre-specified limits (4-5 times the normalised std deviations). This is used to identify large (or gross) errors
- A more sophisticated variational quality control which is applied during the minimisation process, taking into account the consistency of the observations with other observations as well as the first guess and the final analysis. QC decisions can (and do) change during the minimisation process

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Ex. T Bias on DHC-8 Aircraft 

- Unacceptable mean T-bias over 2C from DHC-8 using original OEM temperature probe

- CMC

- Aug 02

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Observed minus first guess statistics for the Canadian AMDAR temperature in August 2002.  A mean bias of +2.54C was observed between 301-700 hPa (upper graphic), and +2.08C between 701-1050 hPa (lower graphic). 
BACKGROUND:
Since mid-July 2002, CMC had been evaluating the Canadian AMDAR data to make sure they are of adequate quality before making them available to the world through GTS.  Unfortunately, since the beginning of data acquisition, a positive temperature bias of 2-4C has been observed with the Canadian data generated by the 21 original DHC-8 100 aircraft.  The same type of temperature bias was observed by the European E-AMDAR with DHC-8 Q400 aircraft operated by SAS (Scandinavia) before they were blacklisted.  A deeper investigation pointed to compounded sources for this issue: 1) the type of QEM T probe that is flat, i.e. the OEM sensor does not protrude into the airstream, and 2) the location-exposure of the sensor that is flashed mounted under the wing root of the aircraft, and maybe also due to location next to hydraulic lines, bleed lines, etc, which are heat sources. The temperature bias also leads to a degradation of the measured wind.
FIX:
Jazz is upgrading each of its DHC-8s with new dual Spirent temperature probes, new Spirent dual digital air data computers, and Universal Avionics Systems Corporation’s UniLink UL-700/701. The new ADCs and temperatures probes eliminated the T bias, which in turn rendered the wind outputs more accurate.

## Ex. T Bias on DHC-8 Aircraft 

- Significant change in TT/UV biases: probes changes by Jazz in Dec 04!

- CMC

- Aug 02

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Observed minus first guess statistics for the Canadian AMDAR temperature in August 2002.  A mean bias of +2.54C was observed between 301-700 hPa (upper graphic), and +2.08C between 701-1050 hPa (lower graphic). 
BACKGROUND:
Since mid-July 2002, CMC had been evaluating the Canadian AMDAR data to make sure they are of adequate quality before making them available to the world through GTS.  Unfortunately, since the beginning of data acquisition, a positive temperature bias of 2-4C has been observed with the Canadian data generated by the 21 original DHC-8 100 aircraft.  The same type of temperature bias was observed by the European E-AMDAR with DHC-8 Q400 aircraft operated by SAS (Scandinavia) before they were blacklisted.  A deeper investigation pointed to compounded sources for this issue: 1) the type of QEM T probe that is flat, i.e. the OEM sensor does not protrude into the airstream, and 2) the location-exposure of the sensor that is flashed mounted under the wing root of the aircraft, and maybe also due to location next to hydraulic lines, bleed lines, etc, which are heat sources. The temperature bias also leads to a degradation of the measured wind.
FIX:
Jazz is upgrading each of its DHC-8s with new dual Spirent temperature probes, new Spirent dual digital air data computers, and Universal Avionics Systems Corporation’s UniLink UL-700/701. The new ADCs and temperatures probes eliminated the T bias, which in turn rendered the wind outputs more accurate.

## Ex. T Bias on DHC-8 Aircraft 

- Density plot of innovations of temperature, all data for month of October 2004.
- Note the known temperature bias of the DHC-8

- CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Observed minus first guess statistics for the Canadian AMDAR temperature in August 2002.  A mean bias of +2.54C was observed between 301-700 hPa (upper graphic), and +2.08C between 701-1050 hPa (lower graphic). 
BACKGROUND:
Since mid-July 2002, CMC had been evaluating the Canadian AMDAR data to make sure they are of adequate quality before making them available to the world through GTS.  Unfortunately, since the beginning of data acquisition, a positive temperature bias of 2-4C has been observed with the Canadian data generated by the 21 original DHC-8 100 aircraft.  The same type of temperature bias was observed by the European E-AMDAR with DHC-8 Q400 aircraft operated by SAS (Scandinavia) before they were blacklisted.  A deeper investigation pointed to compounded sources for this issue: 1) the type of QEM T probe that is flat, i.e. the OEM sensor does not protrude into the airstream, and 2) the location-exposure of the sensor that is flashed mounted under the wing root of the aircraft, and maybe also due to location next to hydraulic lines, bleed lines, etc, which are heat sources. The temperature bias also leads to a degradation of the measured wind.
FIX:
Jazz is upgrading each of its DHC-8s with new dual Spirent temperature probes, new Spirent dual digital air data computers, and Universal Avionics Systems Corporation’s UniLink UL-700/701. The new ADCs and temperatures probes eliminated the T bias, which in turn rendered the wind outputs more accurate.

## Ex. T Bias on DHC-8 Aircraft 

- Density plot of innovations of temperature, all data for month of January 2005.
- Note that the temperature bias of the DHC-8 is gone!

- CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Observed minus first guess statistics for the Canadian AMDAR temperature in August 2002.  A mean bias of +2.54C was observed between 301-700 hPa (upper graphic), and +2.08C between 701-1050 hPa (lower graphic). 
BACKGROUND:
Since mid-July 2002, CMC had been evaluating the Canadian AMDAR data to make sure they are of adequate quality before making them available to the world through GTS.  Unfortunately, since the beginning of data acquisition, a positive temperature bias of 2-4C has been observed with the Canadian data generated by the 21 original DHC-8 100 aircraft.  The same type of temperature bias was observed by the European E-AMDAR with DHC-8 Q400 aircraft operated by SAS (Scandinavia) before they were blacklisted.  A deeper investigation pointed to compounded sources for this issue: 1) the type of QEM T probe that is flat, i.e. the OEM sensor does not protrude into the airstream, and 2) the location-exposure of the sensor that is flashed mounted under the wing root of the aircraft, and maybe also due to location next to hydraulic lines, bleed lines, etc, which are heat sources. The temperature bias also leads to a degradation of the measured wind.
FIX:
Jazz is upgrading each of its DHC-8s with new dual Spirent temperature probes, new Spirent dual digital air data computers, and Universal Avionics Systems Corporation’s UniLink UL-700/701. The new ADCs and temperatures probes eliminated the T bias, which in turn rendered the wind outputs more accurate.

## Ex. DHC-8 Aircraft Wind Monitoring

- Scatter plot for wind, all data for month of March 2005.
- Note a few bad values when forecasting light winds!

- CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

**Notes:**
Observed minus first guess statistics for the Canadian AMDAR temperature in August 2002.  A mean bias of +2.54C was observed between 301-700 hPa (upper graphic), and +2.08C between 701-1050 hPa (lower graphic). 
BACKGROUND:
Since mid-July 2002, CMC had been evaluating the Canadian AMDAR data to make sure they are of adequate quality before making them available to the world through GTS.  Unfortunately, since the beginning of data acquisition, a positive temperature bias of 2-4C has been observed with the Canadian data generated by the 21 original DHC-8 100 aircraft.  The same type of temperature bias was observed by the European E-AMDAR with DHC-8 Q400 aircraft operated by SAS (Scandinavia) before they were blacklisted.  A deeper investigation pointed to compounded sources for this issue: 1) the type of QEM T probe that is flat, i.e. the OEM sensor does not protrude into the airstream, and 2) the location-exposure of the sensor that is flashed mounted under the wing root of the aircraft, and maybe also due to location next to hydraulic lines, bleed lines, etc, which are heat sources. The temperature bias also leads to a degradation of the measured wind.
FIX:
Jazz is upgrading each of its DHC-8s with new dual Spirent temperature probes, new Spirent dual digital air data computers, and Universal Avionics Systems Corporation’s UniLink UL-700/701. The new ADCs and temperatures probes eliminated the T bias, which in turn rendered the wind outputs more accurate.

## AC Jazz Data assimilated at CMC

- CMC

- Impact of 4D-Var

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring of GLFE-TAMDAR at CMC

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring of GLFE TAMDAR at CMC

- Data in BUFR format obtained from AIRDAT ftp server and processed like other AMDAR
- Special care was taken to properly interpret quality flags which are present in the BUFR files: TAMDAR data flagged as SUSPECT or BAD were NOT included in the monitoring, but are available in the database. Counts on how many data are flagged.
- Monitoring done for all data as well as for individual aircraft.
- Tables of “suspect” data generated on a monthly basis using the standard WMO criteria
- Results available on a monitoring web site (intranet)
- Test restricted to temperature and wind

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## GLFE Data Received at CMC

- CMC

- GLFE observations decoded by CMC.  About 4700 observations from all levels, over a 6-hour window centered at 18 UTC on 04 April 2005.

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## GLFE Data Received at CMC

- CMC

- Time series of the amount of data received, 25 day period.

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring of GLFE TAMDAR Data at CMC

- CMC

- Innovations of MVD and speed bias, all data with good flag only. Note speed bias.

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring of GLFE TAMDAR Data at CMC

- CMC

- Innovation of temperature, all data with good flag only. Note occasional larger deviations, but biases remain small.

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring of GLFE TAMDAR Data at CMC

- CMC

- Innovation of temperature, all data with good flag only, month of February. Note more frequent larger deviations, but biases remain small.

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring of GLFE TAMDAR Data at CMC

- CMC

- Density plot of innovations of temperature, all data with good flag only, month of February. Note some very bad data (large deviations) but with good flag.
- These bad data are flagged by CMC background check.

- Bad data

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring of GLFE TAMDAR Data at CMC

- CMC

- Scatter plot for wind, all data for month of March 2005.
- Note some bad wind data (larger deviations) but with good flag.
- These bad data are affecting the overall statistics.

- Bad data

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Single Aircraft: GLFE-0217

- CMC

- Density plot of innovations of temperature for aircraft GLFE-0217, all data with good flag only, month of March.
- Note some very bad data (large deviations) but with good flag

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Single Aircraft: GLFE-0205

- CMC

- Density plot of innovations of temperature for aircraft GLFE-0205, all data with good flag only, month of March.
- TAMDAR TT data is generally of very good quality.

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Single Aircraft: GLFE-0205

- CMC

- Scatter plot for wind for aircraft GLFE-0205, all data with good flag only, month of March.
- TAMDAR wind data is generally of very good quality. Some positive speed bias a small concern.

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Monitoring criteria for Suspect Aircraft

- March     2005   TAMDAR
-   Pressure Categories (hPa)
-   LOW PRESS: 701 - SFC
-   MID PRESS: 301 - 700
-   HIGH PRESS: 300 - 100
-   ID:      is the aircraft tail number
-   NA:      is the total number of available observations
-   NE:      is the total number of erroneous observations
-   NR:      is the number of rejected observations
-   NG:      is the number of gross observations excluding erroneous data
-   NC:      is the number of exactly calm winds excluding erroneous data
-   TBIAS:   is the temperature bias for non-gross temperatures and non-erroneous data
-   TRMS:    is the RMS temperature difference excluding gross errors and erroneous data
-   SBIAS:   is the speed bias for non-gross winds and non-erroneous data
-   WRMS:    is the RMS wind difference excluding gross errors and erroneous data
-   Selection criteria : num obs >=  LOW:20, MID:50, HIGH:50
-   SUSPECT CRITERIA
-   Temperature Bias: LOW  3.0; MID  2.0; HIGH  2.0
-   Temperature RMS:  LOW  4.0; MID  3.0; HIGH  3.0
-   Wind Speed Bias:  LOW  3.0; MID  2.5; HIGH  2.5
-   Wind RMS:         LOW 10.0; MID  8.0; HIGH 10.0
-   More than 2% of observations are gross

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Results as a table

- BUFR FORMAT TEMPERATURE OBSERVATIONS
-  SUSPECT TEMPERATURES
-  ID		 ELEM     LEVEL      NA    NE   NG   NR  TRMS  TBIAS
-  GLFE0238   TEMP  301-700    156      6     32    36    1.9     -1.1
-  GLFE0283   TEMP  301-700    338   106    61   120   1.1     -0.8
-  GLFE0217   TEMP  301-700   2392  163   140   196   1.5    -0.6
-  GLFE0251   TEMP  301-700   2034  110     82   142   1.2    -0.4
-  GLFE0238   TEMP  701-SFC    213   92     56   109    1.9    -0.2
-  GLFE0283   TEMP  701-SFC    509  119   113   201    4.1    0.6
-  GLFE0217   TEMP  701-SFC  3757  195   297   585    3.7    0.6
-  GLFE0242   TEMP  301-700     616      9       0     13    3.3    3.0
-  NON-SUSPECT TEMPERATURES
-  ID        	  ELEM   LEVEL       NA    NE    NG    NR  TRMS  TBIAS
-  GLFE0247   TEMP  701-SFC    647   456     0    342    1.9     -1.2
-  GLFE0262   TEMP  301-700   2131     63      0    16     1.4     -1.0
-  GLFE0244   TEMP  301-700   2788  1961     0  1946   1.4      -0.9
-  GLFE0203   TEMP  301-700   1643    221     0     33    1.5     -0.9
-  GLFE0266   TEMP  301-700   1630     69      0     16    1.4     -0.9
- ETC...

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Conclusion and Discussion

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005

## Conclusion and Discussion

- Summary of monitoring results:
- TAMDAR data generally of good quality. Some concern about a small positive wind bias
- Some obviously bad data are making it to the BUFR files and are corrupting the overall statistics. This is affecting a few aircraft (for February, GLFE 217,225, 240,244,248,249,253,255,270,271,275,279 and 287.
- These bad data are transmitted with a good quality flag (data with the bad flags are not used).
- A more stringent QC at the source should be considered to remove these bad data
- These bad data are usually identified by the NWP QC processes. This would prevent their assimilation.
- Monitoring by NWP process important and useful to identify issues with data

- EC GLFE-TAMDAR Presentation

- 11-12 April 2005