International Civil Aviation Organization

2nd VAAC Best Practices Seminar – report to IVATF/4

ICAO Headquarters, Montreal12-13 June 2012

Review: themes from 1st Seminar

1. “Visible Ash” and how an area of ash is analysed (or forecast) in Volcanic Ash Advisories.

2. Data exchange, the role of the ‘Lead VAAC’, collaborative decision-making, and forecast validation

3. Articulating forecast confidence/uncertainty Increased mutual understanding Better outcomes

Example Confidence Chart – from Wellington

VULNERABILITY TO MONITOR VOLCANIC ASH

• GOES-SA Cancellation: There is a great concern about cancellation of GOES-SA. Currently the image reception is very erratic in response to the satellite present situation which will end up in its total cancellation in the near future.

Alternative is GOES-E which covers the whole area of responsibility only every 3 hours and up to 45° South (approx.) every 30 min. Nevertheless, this smaller sector is canceled every time GOES-E is requested to monitor severe weather events over the US.

From Argentina’s presentation

Since May 5th, we began to receive and process satellite imagery of

GOES-E

The lack of an appropriate channel to detect volcanic ash is the main source of

vulnerability in the ability of Buenos Aires VAAC to monitor VA in its area of responsibility (CH5 instead of CH6 is

needed!).

NO DATA IN THIS REGION

NO DATA IN THIS REGION NO DATA IN THIS REGION

Agreement on Southern Hemisphere coordination test – 4 VAAC circumpolar

Tokyo VAAC case study

• Eruptions of Mt.KLIUCHEVSKOI and Mt.SHEVELUCH– in the part of North of Kamchatkan Peninsula – on October 27th and 28th in 2010

7

KLIUCHEVSKOI SHEVELUCH1059Z• VA FL210 Detection on the MTSAT imagery2010Z • Eruption FL230 Report from KEMSD (Received at 2024Z)

2231Z • Eruption FL230 Report from KEMSD (Received at 2327Z)Time is unknown• VA FL300-FL330 Report from KVERT PAWU and AVO (Received 22-23UTC)

0359Z-0459Z • Ceasing emissions from the crater• VA is indistinguishable from VA emitted from SHEVELUCH

0359Z-0459Z • VA FL250 Detection on MTSAT imagery• VA is indistinguishable from VA emitted from KLIUCHEVSKOI

0619Z • Issue Final VAA (Handover to SHEVELUCH)

0615Z • Issue VAA including VA emitted from KLIUCHEVSKOI

Record of the eruptions

8

Record of handover

Tokyo:VAA100 Anchorage:VAA002

9

28/0615ZVAA099

VA FL250

28/1149ZVAA100

FL250

28/1817ZVAA101FL250

Tokyo VAAC sent a FAX Sheets to request handover to Anchorage

VAAC.

Tokyo VAAC issued VAA for the ash cloud in our area of responsibility.

Anchorage VAAC issued VAA for the ash cloud in their area of responsibility.

Tokyo

Anchorage

Tokyo VAAC sent a FAX to Anchorage VAAC.

HRS(Handover Request Sheet)

Tokyo VAAC uses the preformed fax-sheet that called HRS written in Japanese and English to bridge language gap.

Tokyo VAAC sends HRS with issued VAA, VAG and VAGI.

VAGI shows latest area of ash clouds.10

Part covered with meteorological clouds

Thick black line – Prediction & ObservationAqua line – Covered areas by meteorological clouds

Difficult to determine the covered area by meteorological clouds

11

Confidence Levels

More than 2/3 of polygon contains identified ash cloud -> High Between one third and two thirds of ash cloud's edges discernible -> MidAsh cloud top reported or measured objectively -> High

In this case, Confidence Level defines as Mid.

Thick black line – Prediction & ObservationAqua line – Covered areas by meteorological clouds

12

Confidence Levels

In this case, Confidence Level define as Mid.

13

Black line – High confidenceBlue line – Med confidenceRed line – Low conficence

Approach of Darwin VAAC for Confidence Levels

The confidence level of a polygon edge

14

Approach of Darwin VAAC for Confidence Levels

Black line – High confidenceBlue line – Med confidenceRed line – Low confidence15

London VAAC – hands on case study

Discussion….

Produced by Fred Prata.

Some insights…

VAAC best practice is... The expert evaluation of the best available sources of meteorological

and vulcanological information: • qualititative and quantitative satellite data • model output • ground and airborne based in-situ and remotely sensed

observations • pilot reports using (where possible) collaborative approaches, to derive

authoritative, high quality, evidence based and globally consistent analysis and forecasts.

CDM

• CDAF = Collaborative Decision Analysis and Forecasting• Output from the CDAF becomes the input to “real” CDM.• Need to establish rules for CDAF and document these rules in

either the Handbook or other document.– Focus of CDAF includes the ash cloud at the VAAC boundaries, as well

as tops, bases and horizontal extent.– No CDAF during the initial eruption, but rather occur once the event is

ongoing, but certainly within 24 hours.– Define a common library of English terms to be used, so that all

VAACs, regardless of their native language, can collaborate and exchange information.

CDM

• Need a collaborative tool (visualization and interactive tool) to achieve good results.– Tool can be used to share information, consult

with others, and used by others to follow the process.

• Membership:– Keep the size small for analysis of ash cloud

(perhaps 2-3 VAACs and Met Watch Offices)

OBS VA CLD(T=0) for Confidence levels

Confidence Level

Criteria for T=0

High (meets all 3)

•More than 2/3 of polygon contains identified/discernible ash cloud , and•Ash cloud edges( with respect to polygon) mostly (2/3) discernable, and•plume height and/or ash cloud top reported or measured (objectively) (e.g., Radar, Lidar, satellite, etc)

Medium (meets 2)

•Between 1/3 and 2/3 of polygon contains identifiable/discernible ash cloud.•Between one third and two thirds of ash cloud’s edges discernable•Plume height and/or ash cloud top estimated from recent data (<12 hours)

Low •Less than1/3 of polygon contains identiable/discernable ash cloud.• Ash cloud edges uncertain.•Plume height and/or ash cloud top unconfirmed

Excerpt from BPS/127

Expand to incorporate nil ash – may have to be treated differently

Include temporal considerations

Decision on when the ash has dissipated below ‘discernability’

More discussion of evidence (pilot reports, strength of animation, qualitiative versus quantitative

Input from VASAG on new technologies (ref discussion in IVATF)

Volcanic ash confidence level for time T+0

• The forecaster should analyse both single and multi-spectral satellite imagery

• Consideration of “good” real-time observations. A decision amongst VAACs could take place to define the term “good”.

• The forecaster should consider the effect that the presence of poorly predicted meteorology (e.g. tropical weather) has on volcanic ash analysis.

• There should be “strong agreement” between observations sources. A decision amongst VAACs could take place to define “strong agreement”.

• The forecaster should have a thorough understanding of the VAAC’s observational sources, including the limitations.

• Standardised guidelines detailing how a VAAC goes about deciding upon confidence levels is required.

Analysis process• Consultation should occur with end users to ensure that

confidence levels are fully understood by the wider aviation community.

• Confidence levels could be affected by which volcano observatory is issuing the required VONA.

• The steps that a forecaster would follow when deciding upon certain confidence levels should be transparent.

• Trialling of agreed processes involving end users should occur before inclusion as part of official VAAC operations. A further comment was made about potentially using the RMK section of the VAA to convey the associated confidence level in the required text format.

• Concern around the additional workload that deciding on confidence levels may bring to operations.

• VAACs should possess the same operational abilities as those VAACs for which they provide backup.

Volcanic ash graphic presentation

• Education is essential• only 2 levels of confidence are necessary

o High (black)o Low (red)

• horizontal and Vertical extent should be considered• No obvious problems to using colour • Technically achievable if VAG is available in XML/GML

o Rapid progress/implementation is possible as colour version doesn’t contradict Annex 3

• Black & white version is what we have now , colour would be an Enhancement only

Resourcing

• Issue: The funding of the IAVW, its operations and development, is becoming increasingly difficult.

• Future: There is expected to be increasing pressure for more sophisticated VAAC operations, remote sensing systems, and the funding of a “primary aviation” volcano observing network.

Notes on funding

• The contemporary aviation meteorological system is suffering increasing opportunity cost losses in funding comparatively new IAVW responsibilities within reducing resources.

• Governments are unlikely to redress this situation.• Other funding mechanisms and related management

systems need to be explored.• There is experience to be drawn from in areas such as SADIS

funding.• There are other international initiatives that are funded and

managed by international bodies that should be investigated (eg: World Bank operations).

• The risk in any global system of funding will need to deal with aggregated business risk.

The way forward - funding

Steps Clearly a major business case development exercise is needed.

One of the first steps that can be progressed now in support of any developing business case is the commissioning of a full cost benefit analysis.

This in itself will need funding and management.

Develop-ment

Funding

Basic economic theory suggests that, given the private good nature of the IAVW product, that the user community should fund this process.

There is some argument that the outcome could be considered a public good but this is unlikely to be successfully advanced with governments.

The future in VAAC science/operations…

• Strong need to push the leading edge• Best practices WMO Workshop process• Quality management / continuous improvement