# Presentation: 806135

## CCFP

**COLLABORATIVE CONVECTIVE FORECAST PRODUCT**

**TRAINING**

**SPRING 2005**

**Notes:**
Have students open the TSD

## Course Objectives

**Overview of CCFP**
**Identify the upcoming changes for 2005 convective season**
**Identify strengths and weaknesses, and what the product can and can not do**
**Address misconceptions and issues encountered in past convective seasons with the product**
**Review two case studies**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## Purpose & Overview of CCFP

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
Bullet 1: The purpose of the CCFP is to support strategic, system-wide planning that is intended to reduce traffic flow disruptions that may be impacted by convective weather during the next 2-6 hours. 

Bullet 2: Convective weather related delays are a highly disruptive force within Air Traffic Control (ATC) systems 

Bullet 3: CCFP attempts to reduce weather-related impacts by creating common situational awareness and to improve coordination and cooperation among participants  
Note (3) One might ask the question, “Compared to what?”  Prior to CCFP there WAS no comprehensive thunderstorm forecast being produced on the scale and at the times needed to support Air Traffic Management decisions. So any assertions of accuracy based on comparisons to other forecasts are problematic. Further, prior to CCFP, no attempts had been made to assess the accuracy of thunderstorm forecasts for anything but TAFs and occurrences of “severe” weather e.g. tornadoes, hail, high winds, etc.

Bullet 4: CCFP has been embraced by the FAA and US airline industry as the cornerstone of severe weather planning for US Airspace operations
Note (4) Providing a SINGLE wide area forecast for Traffic Management had not really been attempted prior to CCFP although the idea has been around for some time.

## CCFP Background

**The 2005 convective season will be the start of the 5****th**** season to use CCFP operationally **
**CCFP is developed through a collaboration process between meteorologists**
**All stakeholders have agreed that the CCFP is the primary weather forecast product for strategic planning on the Planning TELCON**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CCFP: What it is

**CCFP**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
Bullet 1: CCFP is a strategic planning tool for the 2 to 6 hour time frame, which begins March 1 and runs through the end of October
Bullet 2: CCFP is a package of 3 forecast maps with lead times of 2, 4 and 6 hours
Bullet 3: CCFP is updated every 2 hours, with the exception of 1 AM Eastern Time
Bullet 4: CCFP is produced during the convective season covering the lower 48 states (March through October) and Southern Ontario and Quebec (April through September)

## Canadian CCFP

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CCFP: What it is not

**CCFP**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
Bullet 1: CCFP does not forecast all convective activity
NOTE 1: CCFP forecasts a minimum level of convective activity (25% coverage or more with tops above 25,000 feet).  If the forecasted region does not have the area coverage of 25%, or tops above 25,000 ft., the forecast will not show that area of convective activity as a CCFP polygon.  However, this area may impact the airspace – something to stay aware of.

Bullet 2: CCFP forecast areas are not ‘no-fly zones’
NOTE 2: In the past, a low confidence coverage polygon would be interpreted by TMCs as an area that would be “closed-off” for traffic flow and would need re-routes around the entire forecasted area.  Last year we started using triggers a lot more to decide when re-routes needed to go into affect.  

Bullet 3: CCFP forecasts are not  tactical short-term decision-aids (0-2 hrs)

Bullet 4: There are convective products that should be used for tactical decision making that include:
National Convective Weather Forecast (NCWF)
Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)
Corridor Integrated Weather System (CIWS)

This planning process is more suited to the product, being a strategic forecast tool, versus a see and avoid type of tactical planning.

## CCFP Collaborators

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
Bullet 1: CCFP is developed by a collaborative team of weather professionals that include:
NWS meteorologists at the Aviation Weather Center (AWC)
NWS meteorologists at CWSUs 
MSC Meteorological Service of Canada 
Airline meteorology offices and independent weather units
Bullet 2: AWC Forecasters:
Produce the preliminary forecasts
Lead and monitor the chat room
Consider all input from chat room participants
Produce the final graphical forecasts
Bullet 3:  MSC Canadian Forecasters:
Contribute forecasts in their area of responsibility
Contribute to the chat room.
Contribute from April through September
Bullet 4: Center Weather Service Units (CWSUs)
Contribute forecasts to the chat room by focusing on their specific regions
Bullet 5: Airline meteorology offices and other independent weather units
Contribute to the chat room 

## CCFP Collaborative Process

**The chat sessions occur every two hours and are completed prior to the planning telcon (PT) **
**AWC is committed to reading every comment**
**The previous forecasts (4 and 6 hour forecasts) will be used as preliminary forecasts for the next 2 and 4 hour forecast **
**Except for the 1 a.m. forecast, which a new preliminary forecast will be issued for the 6-hr lead time. **

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CCFP Forecast Issuance Example

**2, 4, 6 hour forecasts**

**11 - 13 - 15**

**0915**

**0900**

**0815 - 0845**

**2, 4, 6 hour forecasts**

**09 - 11 - 13**

**0715**

**0700**

**0615 - 0645**

**2, 4, 6 hour forecasts**

**07 - 09 - 11**

**0515**

**0500**

**0415 - 0445**

**2, 4, 6 hour forecasts**

**05 - 07 - 09**

**-------**

**0300**

**0215 - 0245**

**Comments**

**Valid Times**
**(Eastern Time)**

**Supported Telcon**
**(Eastern Time)**

**CCFP Issue**
**(Eastern Time)**

**Collaboration Session Open (Eastern Time)**

**Note: The previous 4 and 6 hour forecasts will be used as preliminary forecasts for the 2 and 4 hour forecast**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
Remember what we discussed regarding the package of 3 forecasts with 2, 4 and 6 hour lead times. The previous 4 and 6 hour forecasts will be used as preliminary forecasts for the 2 and 4 hour forecast. 

For example when you look at the first line in valid times, the 05, 07 & 09, the 07 and 09 (the 4 & 6 hour forecasts), the 07 becomes the preliminary 2 hour forecast and the 09 becomes the preliminary 4 hour forecast for the next issuance time.

## CCFP Collaborative Process, cont.

**The final package is completed by AWC and includes the 2, 4 and 6 hour forecasts and posted on the TSD and CCSD, as well as the AWC and ATCSCC websites.**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## New 2005 TSD CCFP Graphic

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
The new look of the 2005 CCFP graphic.  Notice the colors have changed, and forecaster confidence levels are now represented by the colors within the polygons that represent a more intuitive convective forecast product.  We will discuss these changes in further detail as we continue through the presentation.  The biggest question we’ve been asked, is why are we changing something we’re getting comfortable with?

## Why Change the Graphic?

**?**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
Bullet 1: To mitigate the previous perception of “no-fly zones”
Bullet 2: By using fill to indicate the density of forecast convection, and new color changes to create forecaster confidence of occurrence we hope to give the traffic manager a “quick glance value” to decipher the forecast
Bullet 3: Polygon color change to mitigate confusion on the TSD between other similar products used by traffic managers 
Note 3: The monitor alert product for example depicts sector alerts in yellow and red, which tended to confuse the users when overlaying with the previous CCFP product.  
Bullet 4: Introduce a more intuitive data block of information

With the change, You can expect benefits
Bullet 1: A “quick glance value” of the forecast
Bullet 2: The user can immediately interpret the forecaster’s high confidence of occurrence represented by color 
Bullet 3: Less restrictions through areas of low confidence and low coverage
less fill should yield more capacity 
Bullet 4: Make the TMC decision making process quicker and easier by focusing on the traffic management decision and not deciphering the forecast

## CCFP Display on CCSD

**CCFP Display on CCSD**

- On the menu bar of the CCSD, click the weather pull-down menu and choose “select weather”

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
How do you display CCFP on the CCSD?

## Select weather dialog on CCSD

**Select weather dialog on CCSD**

- CCFP forecast map selection for the 2, 4 or 6 hour forecast overlay

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
This is the menu that pops-up when you choose, “select weather”.

Walk the students through the aqua areas and explain.

## New 2005 TSD CCFP Graphic (with detail)

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
Notice that issue times and valid times are represented on the graphic – no change to these.  

## Forecaster Confidence of Occurrence

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
The 1st major change for the 2005 CCFP graphic is the forecaster confidence of occurrence.  

Notice there are two areas of confidence now used to depict the forecaster confidence of occurrence for future thunderstorm events after considering all information.  To further explain, it’s the forecasters’ level of confidence that the polygon will reach the minimum criteria threshold.  For example, if you see the color blue, it represents a higher confidence level in reaching the minimum threshold criteria.  

Comparing blue to gray doesn’t mean that the color blue represents more intense convection, but a higher chance the convection within that polygon will reach the minimum threshold.

## CCFP Coverage Criteria

**Coverage (CVRG): Identify by degree of fill in one of 3 categories for areas:**
**Low 25-49% (Sparse Fill)**
**Med 50-74% (Medium Fill)**
**High 75-100% (Solid Fill)**
**Solid line of convection (****Purple****)**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
The 2nd major change for 2005 is the representation of convective coverage.

Notice there are three areas of fill now used to depict the coverage area for future thunderstorm events.  This is a major change in the interpretation of the product by using fill to depict coverage rather than color.

This aspect of CCFP has been the most prominent piece of information used by the Collaborative Decision Making process and also the most MISUSED piece of information, which is one of the main reasons for the change.

A low coverage, represented by sparse fill means that 25-49% of the polygon is forecasted to contain convection
A Med coverage, represented by medium fill means that 50-74% of the polygon is forecasted to contain convection
A High coverage, represented by solid fill means that 75-100% of the polygon is forecasted to contain convection

Give example of the net analogy
Bullet 1: Coverage areas:
Low (Sparse Fill) Mostly SCT TSTMS predicted to cover 25-49% of the area. Possible line(s) of TSTMS.
Med – (Medium Fill) Forecast to be 50-74% of the area and may include short lines or clusters.  Often associated with weather fronts or tropical systems.
High – (Solid Fill) Coverage is dense, 75% or > and  usually includes lines and clusters.
Lines – Nearly solid lines of convective activity.
Remember – The differences in traffic volume, location and time of day affect planning decisions
Low coverage in a high traffic density area could have high impact
High coverage in a low traffic density area could have low impact.

## CCFP Coverage Criteria

**Coverage (CVRG): Identify by degree of fill in one of 3 categories for areas:**
**Low 25-49% (Sparse Fill)**
**Med 50-74% (Medium Fill)**
**High 75-100% (Solid Fill)**
**Solid line of convection (****Purple****)**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
The 2nd major change for 2005 is the representation of convective coverage.

Notice there are three areas of fill now used to depict the coverage area for future thunderstorm events.  This is a major change in the interpretation of the product by using fill to depict coverage rather than color.

This aspect of CCFP has been the most prominent piece of information used by the Collaborative Decision Making process and also the most MISUSED piece of information, which is one of the main reasons for the change.

A low coverage, represented by sparse fill means that 25-49% of the polygon is forecasted to contain convection
A Med coverage, represented by medium fill means that 50-74% of the polygon is forecasted to contain convection
A High coverage, represented by solid fill means that 75-100% of the polygon is forecasted to contain convection

Give example of the net analogy
Bullet 1: Coverage areas:
Low (Sparse Fill) Mostly SCT TSTMS predicted to cover 25-49% of the area. Possible line(s) of TSTMS.
Med – (Medium Fill) Forecast to be 50-74% of the area and may include short lines or clusters.  Often associated with weather fronts or tropical systems.
High – (Solid Fill) Coverage is dense, 75% or > and  usually includes lines and clusters.
Lines – Nearly solid lines of convective activity.
Remember – The differences in traffic volume, location and time of day affect planning decisions
Low coverage in a high traffic density area could have high impact
High coverage in a low traffic density area could have low impact.

## Coverage Criteria Points to Remember

**An area, or single cell of convection with a coverage of less  than 25% will not be forecast on the CCFP but may still impact the airspace, but is normally handled as a tactical issue**
**Remember the criteria for an area of convection on the CCFP is at least 3,000 sq. mi area with coverage greater than 25%, and echo tops greater than 25,000 ft.**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## Coverage Criteria Points to Remember

**Coverage is NOT the chance of thunderstorm development, but the **_**percentage of area covered**_** by the convective activity**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## Review

**Two major changes to the 2005 CCFP**
**Confidence is Color**
**Low                 25-49%**
**High                 50-100%**
**Coverage is Fill**
**Low 25-49% (Sparse Fill)**
**Med 50-74% (Medium Fill)**
**High 75-100% (Solid Fill)**** **

**(GRAY)**

**(BLUE)**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CCFP Interpretation - 1

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CCFP Interpretation - 2

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CCFP Interpretation - 3

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CCFP Data Block

**DATA BLOCK**

| TOPS = | Height of Max Echo Tops expressed in feet MSL |
| --- | --- |
| GWTH = | Growth rate of area or line |
| CONF = | Forecaster confidence of Minimum Criteria |
| CVRG = | Area coverage |

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
TOPS =	Height of Max Echo Tops expressed in feet MSL
GWTH =	Growth rate of area or line
CONF =	Forecaster confidence of Minimum Criteria
CVRG =	Area coverage

## CCFP Movement

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CCFP Tops Criteria:

_**TOPS **_**:**
**Echo tops within the forecast area are reported in the following three categories:**
**25,000-31,000 feet MSL**
**31,000-37,000 feet MSL**
**Above 37,000**
**Echo top of  25,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), or greater, are expected to cover at least 25% of the forecast area **

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
A slight change from last year where the data block listed tops as HGHT, which now is listed as TOPS.

Visualize the 3 representations of tops across the X-axis to explain each tops area.

Note: Within each area of convection, height of maximum Echo tops (the height of   18.5 dbZ reflectivity (VIP Level 1)) encompassing coverage greater than 25% will be identified in one of three ranges:
       25000-31000 feet MSL
       31000-37000 feet MSL
       above 37000 feet MSL

## CCFP Growth

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
Applies to both the lateral and vertical extent of the evolution of the convection in a given area.

## 2005 CCFP Schedule

| Collaboration Session Open (Eastern Time) | CCFP Issue
(Eastern Time) | Supported Telcon
(Eastern Time) | Valid Times
(Eastern Time) | Comments |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0215 - 0245 | 0300 | ------ | 05 - 07 - 09 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 0415 - 0445 | 0500 | 0515 | 07 - 09 - 11 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 0615 - 0645 | 0700 | 0715 | 09 - 11 - 13 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 0815 - 0845 | 0900 | 0915 | 11 - 13 - 15 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 1015 - 1045 | 1100 | 1115 | 13 - 15 - 17 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 1215 - 1245 | 1300 | 1315 | 15 - 17 - 19 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 1415 - 1445 | 1500 | 1515 | 17 - 19 - 21 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 1615 - 1645 | 1700 | 1715 | 19 - 21 - 23 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 1815 - 1845 | 1900 | 1915 | 21 - 23 - 01 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 2015 - 2045 | 2100 | 2115 | 23 - 01 - 03 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |
| 2215 - 2245 | 2300 | ------- | 01 - 03 - 05 | 2, 4, 6 hour forecasts |

**Note: UTC is +5 hours ahead of Eastern before Daylight Savings (April 3, 2005), and  +4 hours ahead of Eastern time during Daylight Savings**** **

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
The CCFP package is issued 11 times per day to correspond with the planning telcons held daily.

Bullet 1: As a baseline, a new CCFP package is issued every 2 hours to coincide with the Planning TELCON
Bullet 2: Additional CCFP forecasts may be routinely scheduled at the AWC to maintain continuity and consistency
Bullet 3: Additional CCFP forecasts can be requested on the Planning TELCON if the weather dictates.  The ATCSCC will be responsible for finalizing this decision and coordinating the request with AWC

## CCFP DATA VERIFICATION

- _[http://www-ad.fsl.noaa.gov/fvb/rtvs/conv/index.html](http://www-ad.fsl.noaa.gov/fvb/rtvs/conv/index.html)_

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## Scenario 1: Aug 10, 2004

**Scenario 1: Aug 10, 2004**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
This is the 4-hour forecast for the 1900 valid time.

Weather
A cold front extended from a low in Ontario to the southwest through the eastern Great Lakes and Ohio River Valley into the central plains.

Chat Room
The ZID and ZME CWSUs maintained through the morning and early afternoon collaborations that thunderstorms would occur in their airspaces, but would likely remain below criteria.  As it turned out, storms did meet criteria in both ZID and ZME, but probably not by much.

Accuracy and Precision
A scattered to broken band of thunderstorms developed rapidly along the cold front during the early and mid afternoon.  It met criteria in southeast Ontario by 17Z, built to the southwest into Kentucky by 19Z and reached Arkansas by 21Z.  The northeast half of the band was forecasted generally well, but the southwest half wasn’t included on a CCFP until the 21Z issuance, when it had already peaked and had begun to weaken.  Thunderstorms in the Gulf States from Florida around to Texas were forecasted well, although activity in Texas developed farther inland than had been expected.

Note:  Some things to look for – and think about.  Notice the CCFP did not forecast into the north east portion of Kentucky.  However, the ZID & ZME CWSU’s did note in the chat sessions that the areas would be building in those areas and did not think it would meet the criteria.  The chat logs and the PT telcons are a great resource if you have the time to gather that extra information.  

When we finish with the scenarios, I’ll walk you through where to find the chat logs.  

## Scenario 1: Aug 10, 2004

**Scenario 1: Aug 10, 2004**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
This is the 2-hour forecast for the 1900 valid time.

## Scenario 1: Aug 10, 2004

**Scenario 1: Aug 10, 2004**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
The actual weather at 1900

## Chat Log Area

**Remember - the chat logs and the PT telcons are a great resource if you have time to gather that extra information**
**The chat logs can be found on the AWC website at:**
**	**_**[http://aviationweather.gov/products/ccfp/logs](http://aviationweather.gov/products/ccfp/logs)**_
**You may want to have your supervisors print the logs if you know there will be significant weather to deal with**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CONCLUSIONS

**CCFP intended as a long range (2-6 hour) strategic forecast not as a tactical tool**
**The graphic was changed to give TMCs a more of a  quick glance overview of the weather forecast**
**Confidence is Color**
**Low                 25-49%**
**High                 50-100%**

**(GRAY)**

**(BLUE)**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

## CONCLUSIONS

**Coverage is Fill**
**Low 25-49% (Sparse Fill)**
**Med 50-74% (Medium Fill)**
**High 75-100% (Solid Fill) **
**CVRG is the percentage of area coverage NOT the chance of thunderstorm (TSTM) development**

- ATO-R, National Traffic Management Training Branch

**Notes:**
 less fill means more aircraft will be able to go through the forecasted weather