SP 01

ICAO APAC
Wind Shear Systems

Acquisition Workshop
Bangkok Thailand
Bangkok,
1-3 December 2010
Christopher Keohan, RO-MET

ICAO ASIA/PAC Regional Office, Bangkok
1
Introductions
Name
State
Job
(first question)
2
(First question)
Wind Shear Overview
z Increase safety/efficiency
z Main reference material:

– ICAO Annex 3, 11
– ICAO Manual on Low-level Wind Shear (Doc
9817)
– PANS-ATM
PANS ATM (Doc 4444)
3
Contents
z Introductions………….…………………............2
z O
Overview/SARPs………………………..…….3-6
i /SARP 36
z Wind Shear Intro/
z Aircraft & Pilot Responses…………………...7-33
z FAA Systems (TDWR)
(TDWR)…………….......…....34-70
34 70
z (LLWAS)……………………………...……….71-87
z (ITWS)…………………………………..……88-124
z (WSP)
(WSP)……………………………….........…125 125-135
135
z Summary of WS detection systems………136-137
z Summary of system products….…..……...138-139
z LIDAR……………….……………..…………140-149
z ATM………………………………….……….150-176
4
Global WS Accidents
z Over 1,500 deaths since 1943
– Aviation Safety Network
http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=WXW 5
File: google_wsglobe_squarechar
SARP SUMMARY (second question)
5 6 AIREP w/ WS
5.6, 42
4.2.e
App 4, 4.1.2 – No WS Agreement M
-If FCST/REP & not Tower / Approach ATS-MET
encountered Ann 11, 7.1.4.6 and 7.1.3.6 MET info
that includes WS
E
PANS-ATM T
-transmit without delay
to departing aircraft 7.4.1 – WS WRNGS
(6.4.2); final approach Give concise WS info
(6.6.4.6); prior to < 500 m (1 600 ft)
takeoff (7.4.1.2.2)
App 6 – Format (warnings)
7 4 3 – WS alerts
7.4.3 Table A6-3
A6 3 & plain language,
language 6.2.3
623
Automated, ground-based, wind shear MBST term referenced, 6.2.6
Remote sensing or detection equipment Do not change ACRFT TYPE/WS Rep, 6.2.4
Headwind/tailwind change 15 kt or more
Every minute, 7.4.4 App 3, 4.8.1.[2-4]
MBST term referenced, App 6, 6.2.6 Supp WX info
Loc (dist appr/dep/rwy), App. 6 6.2.7 Local routine / special reports
agreed MET/ATS/OPS METAR / SPECI (not transient)
App. 6, 6.1 - Evidence of WS

Grnd Based Remote Sensing (Doppler)
Grnd Based Det Equipment (LLWAS) 7.4.2 Cancellation
Arcrft Reports (AIREPS) App 9, 1.[1-2].b AIREP reports no WS or 6
Other (wind sensors in other locations) WS WRNGS to Tow/Appch Agreed time ATS/MET/OPS
Introduction
z Wind Shear Definition
– A change in wind speed and/or direction

in space,
p including
g updrafts
p and
downdrafts.
7
Projected flight path of MB encounter if no
intervention by pilot
ICAO Manual on Low-level Wind Shear (after Melvin, 1977) 8
Wind Type vs. Lift
Power
Headwind Lift Higher than GS
Pitch
Angle of Power
Downdraft Lower than GS
Attack/Lift Pitch
Power
Tailwind Lift Lower than GS
Pitch
9
Microburst Impact to Flight
z Head wind
– Aircraft response; gain in airspeed - extra lift – pitch up
– Pilot response; less power, lower pitch to obtain glide slope
– Danger:
D W
Wrong configuration
fi ti leading
l di iintot ddowndraft
d ft and d
tailwind and can lead to ground impact
z Downdraft
– Aircraft response; lower angle of attack – loss of lift
– Pilot response; increase power; increase pitch if above stall
z Tail wind
– Aircraft response; loss of airspeed – loss of lift – pitch
down
– Pilot
Pil t response; increase
i power; increase
i pitch
it h if above
b stall
t ll
10
Note: GF encounter involves headwind part
Pilot Response to WS
z Large Jet Transport Aircraft Notes
z3 kt/s excess thrust margin – if available

z 25
25-30
30 kt speed margin above stalling speed
near landing
(third question) – first page of response

11
WS Type - Convective
z Microburst Characteristics
– Max intensity < 10 minutes

z 50% are max byy 5 minutes
– High pressure
– Associated with downdraft
– Winds spread out – diverge
– Horizontal shear
12
Microburst Evolution
Wilson, Roberts, Kessinger and McCarthy; Microburst wind

structure and evaluation of Doppler radar for airport wind shear
detection, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, June 1984
13
Wet Microburst Dry Microburst
Curl shows microburst outflow
Wolfson, Marilyn M et al.; 1994; Automated Microburst Wind 14

Shear Prediction; MIT/LL Journal VOL 7, No 2
Microburst signature at Denver (white oval) with
associated outflow boundary (blue)
15
Aircraft Response to WS
z Quantifying Aircraft Speed Loss Due to
Microburst
– Typically expressed as loss in airspeed in

distance of 1-4
1 4 km
– Horizontal wind used by wind
sensors/radar
z Slope of beam typically low to capture
conditions along glide slope, which is 3 deg
– Therefore
Th f expression i d does nott ffactor t
downdraft (loss of lift due to angle of attack) 16
z Microburst
– For FAA ATC
z Wind Shear ≥ 15 kt loss in less than 4 km

z Microburst ≥ 30 kt loss in less than 4 km
17
z Microbursts, downdrafts and
downbursts often produce gust fronts
z Gust front – leading

g edge
g of cold
downdraft air on surface
18
z Gust Front Characteristics
– Up to 20 km ahead of storm
– Up to 50 kt winds (some higher)
– Downburst angle with ground favors
motion in one direction
– Depth
D th up tto 3 200 ft,
ft 1 000 m (squall-
( ll
lines)
z 200 m nose due to friction
19
– Series of cold pulses

– Roll cloud, dust
z Haboobs – Sudan
z Andhi - India
– Radar thin line
20
Gust front cross section
ICAO “gust front turbulence and wind shear” Poster No. P621
21
Gust front with roll cloud and scud
Harald Edens at www.weather-photography.com
22
Haboob and associated dust
Harald Edens at www.weather-photography.com

p g p y
23
Visible satellite
10 May 2003,
2003
1915 UT
Old outflow
boundaries
locust.mmm.ucar.edu; Greg Thompson

24
Visible satellite
10 May 2003,
2003
2215 UT
New outflow
boundary
locust.mmm.ucar.edu; Greg Thompson

25
Microburst at Denver (white oval) with associated
outflow boundary (blue) and thin line on left
26
– Line of low pressure (like a cold front)

– Updrafts along front
– Winds meet – convergence
– Vertical and horizontal shear
27
z Gust Front Wind Shear
– Vertical shear
z Like cold fronts,, but shallower
z WS zone increases w/ height after gust front
passes
z The increase in height is short-lived
z Aircraft can expect a gain in airspeed, thus a

gain in altitude
altitude, higher than glide slope
28
Gust Front Impact to Flight
z Head wind
– Aircraft response;
p ; gain
g in airspeed
p – extra
lift – pitch up
– Pilot response; less power, pitch down to
obtain glide slope
z Dangers
– Differential lift on wings can cause roll
– Touchdown p point too far down runwayy
29
z Differential Wing Lift
– Onset of gust front on one wing first
– Lift greater on one wing than the other,

causes roll to wing
g with less lift
30
z SLC Incident – SkyWest 3964 (wing
clip)
– CRJ2 clipped
pp left wing
g on short final
z Right
g wing g 25-35 kt headwind
z Left wing 8-18 kt headwind
z Differential lift caused roll to left
31
SLC TDWR base data of aircraft roll incident
32
Response Item
z Gust fronts contain what danger to
aircraft?
– A) It gets windy in the cabin
– B) A loss of lift can result in a quick loss in

altit de
altitude
– C) Differential lift can cause a roll

(fourth question) – last 2 pages response 33
Wind Shear Detection Systems
z U.S. has extensive aviation wind shear
network because
– High
g incidence of wind shear
– High volume of air traffic
– Significant history of wind shear accidents
– Available funding
34
z Microburst and Gust Front Detection
– TDWR
– LLWAS
– TDWR/LLWAS-NE++
TDWR/LLWAS NE Integration
– ITWS (uses TDWR)
– ITWS/LLWAS-NE++ Integration
– WSP
– LIDAR
35
FAA Terminal Wind Shear and Weather Systems
LIDAR
LLWAS WSP
LAS 2008 TDWR 36
TDWR/LLWAS-NE++, ITWS and WSP
– MB/GF display and alerts are consistent
TDWR WSP
ITWS
37
z TDWR, ITWS and WSP displays are
consistent in
– Wind shear loss = red oval

z Sh
Shape red
d fill
filled
d ffor microbursts
i b t (≥30 kt)
– Gust front = purple line
z 10/20 minute predictions = dashed purple
lines
– Rain = 6-level NWS presentation
38
z TDWR/LLWAS-NE++, LLWAS-RS,
ITWS, and WSP alerts are consistent
– RWY / WS Type
yp / Strength
g / Location /
Boundary Wind
– 15A MBA 40K- 3MF CALM
39
Ribbon Displays
TDWR
WSP
ITWS
LLWAS-NE++ 40
TDWR Ribbon Display Terminal (RBDT)
Universal Time
Airport Wind
Runway ID
Alert Type
Shear V
Sh Value
l
Loss (-) or
Gain (+)
Location of WS LLWAS
(1st encounter) Boundary
41
Wind
TDWR RBDT
Wind Shear Alert (WSA) Microburst Alert (MBA)

given for loss values given for loss values
under 30 kt 30 kt and greater 42
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)
45 systems
46 airports
Wavelength 5 cm
Peak Power 250 kw
EL Beam 0.55°
AZ Beam 0.55°
Range Gate 150 m
Volume 3 min
Surface 1 min
Max vel 13-24m/s
43
TDWR locations – red square
q
TDWRs
44
TDWR scan strategy
OKC 360 -Degree Scans 1
1.02km
02km Vert Res 0
0-3.0km
3 0km and 1
1.52km
52km from 3
3.0km-6.0km
0km 6 0km
6.0
5.5
50
5.0
4.5
4.0
MAWA
Height
g 3.5
35
in KM
3.0
2.5
20
2.0
1.5
1.0
05
0.5
8.5 11.4 14.2 17.1 19.9 22.8

Min Range MAWA in KM Max Range
runway 45
Lowest scan < 300 m desired s
z TDWR MB/GF
– MB range is 35 km, 1 minute update rate

– GF range is 60 km, 6 minute update rate
z Wind shear loss – red ovals, filled ≥30 kt

z Gust Front – purple line detection; dashed
lines 10- and 20- minute predictions; and wind
behind front
46
TDWR DFU with MBs (red) and GFs (purple)
47
z MB Detection – TDWR
– Wind shear shapes attributes

z Sometimes large
g shapes
p
– Shear test relaxed (2.5 m/s/km for 8 gates)
z Storm aloft
– Lvl
L l 1 (2) precip
i aloft
l ft ((wett environment)
i t)
z ARENA overlap
48
outflow boundary (blue)
49
z MB Detection - TDWR
– POD > 90%

z Higher POD in wet climates, lower in dry climates
– PFA < 10%

z Lower PFA in some wet climates – clutter dependent
z Higher PFA in dry climates
50
– Microburst Detection Flaws (Missed Detections

and False Alarms)
z Ground clutter breakthrough

z Velocity aliasing
z Second trip leakage
z Attenuation degradation (rain/hail radome to 20 dB)
– Greater than 9 DB 2-wayy attenuation flagged
gg and precipitation
displayed grey
z No storm aloft 51
Dry microburst at SLC does not show through
g on surface scan
clutter editing
52
SLC clutter map for 0.1-degree scan (now re-
placed with the 0.5-degree
p g scan))
53
Missed wind shear loss of 20-25 kt near JFK in
gravity
g y wave type
yp feature – no storm aloft
54
z MB Detection
– Previous two missed wind shear detections

z Dry microbursts in clutter environment
z No storm aloft
– LIDAR ((LIght
g Detection and Ranging)
g g)
z Detects dry wind shear, handles clutter better (shorter
range , but still covers most of the aerodrome)
55
– Microburst Detection Advantages
z Large aerial coverage

z Satellite airport coverage
g
z Short term forecast of WS possible
(movement of microbursts)
56
z GF Detection – TDWR Machine
Intelligent Gust Front Algorithm
(MIGFA)
– Gust Front signature
z Radial velocity decreases with distance
z Line convergence ≥10 km in length
z Usually associated with reflectivity thin line of

0-20 dBZ (from insects, moisture, and density
change)
z Max range
g 60 km
57
outflow boundary (blue)
58
TDWR Ribbon Display
Gust front gain alerts

59
z GF Detection – TDWR Machine Intelligent
Gust Front Algorithm (MIGFA)
– MIGFA Performance
z POD ≈ 85% for wind shear strength > 20 knots

z POD ≈70% for wind shear strength > 5 knots
z PFA ≈ 20% for wind shear strength 15 & 20 knots
60
z GF Detection – TDWR
– Gust Front Detection Flaws
z GF aligned perpendicular to radar (blind spot)

– Radial velocities do not show convergence
z GF update is 6 minutes for TDWR, initial
detection can be delayed to 12 minutes
– MIGFA requires 2 detections to issue a gust front
61
Missed GF at SLC due to nearly radially aligned
orientation
62
– Gust Front Detection Flaws (missed detections

and false alarms)
z Ground clutter breakthrough

z Velocity aliasing
z Second trip leakage
z Attenuation degradation (rain/hail radome to 20 dB)
63
“Invisible” 20-kt strength gust front for TDWR:
poor viewing
p g angle
g and second trip p editing
g
64
Missed GF at Salt Lake City
65
TDWR velocity aliasing (enclosed black shape)
at SLC contributed to the missed GF (oval regions)
66
– Gust Front Detection Advantages
z Large aerial coverage

z Satellite airport coverage
z Short term forecast of WS possible (gust front

prediction for 10 and 20 minutes)
z Use for convective forecast
67
WS Type - Convection
z TDWR Radar Data Acquisition
– Upgrade receiver & digital signal

processing
z Pulse
P l phase
h coding
di ->> multiple
lti l PRT waveform
f
z Wider receiver dynamic range of 105 dB
– Results
z Improve range and velocity folding
z Reduce stationary & moving ground clutter
68
WS Type - Convection
z TDWR Radar Data Acquisition
– Prototype deployed at LAS, SLC

z Dryy conditions,, significant
g clutter
z Quantification of performance enhancements TBD
– National deployment
y expected from 2011-13
– Reference slides on next page from
z http://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/aviation/faawxsystem
s/tdwr.html
69
Above - Less second trip editing on upper right panel
would allow for detection of gust front
Below – ground clutter, spikes and bird targets removed
(fifth question) 70
Low
Level
Wind
Shear
Alert
System
(LLWAS)
71
z MB/GF Detection LLWAS - 2 systems
– LLWAS-RS / LLWAS-NE++
z Generates
G t WS alerts
l t with
ith WS values
l andd
covers runways, short final and departure
z RS at medium sized airports, NE at large
airports
72
z LLWAS-RS (40 systems) and
LLWAS-NE++ (9 systems co-located with TDWR and 1
standalone
t d l iin JJuneau, Al
Alaska)
k )
z At least 6 sensors (DEN has 32)
z 10 second update, CF 2 minute running average
z Triangulation/edges used to determine WS
– Wind shear value given (runway oriented)

z Detects both GF and MB well ((POD 96%,, PFA 5%))
z Short approach and short final covered
z LLWAS-NE++ alerts integrated with TDWR and ITWS
73
z MB/GF Detection – LLWAS-NE++
– MB/GF Detection Flaws
z Aerial
A i l coverage lilimited
it d (t
(typically
i ll 1-3
1 3 nm final)
fi l)
z Detection delayed if MB size < than network size
z Anemometers (i.e. Beufort) age, impacted by birds and
slowed by heavy rain to reduce WS strength
– SONIC sensors have replaced Beufort sensors in U.S.
74
z MB/GF Detection – LLWAS-NE++

z Fast update
p rate ((10 seconds))
z Detects dry MB better than Doppler
z Detects GF gain better than Doppler
z New technology such as Sonic sensor is very

reliable (not as impacted by rain)
75
DEN TDWR DFU alerts from LLWAS-NE++
Example of TDWR/LLWAS-NE++ Integration 76

DEN LLWAS-NE++
winds indicate a
strong cold front
across DEN
77
DEN TDWR base data shows lack of scatterers
78
Question
z QUESTION: A dry MB will most likely
be detected by the TDWR or LLWAS-
NE++?
79
Answer
z LLWAS-NE++
(note that if sufficient scatterers are present

and the ground clutter not a factor, the
D
Doppler
l can d detect
t td dry wind
i d shear
h –
however – some airport areas have
significant clutter and are located in dry
environments where scatterers are minimal)
80
Question
z The reliability of the LLWAS-NE++ GF
detection is greater than, equal to, or
less than that of the TDWR?
81
Answer
z Greater than
Integration of TDWR and LLWAS-

g
NE++ uses the highest g
gain value of
the two systems
82
Question
z Is the LLWAS susceptible to second
trip editing and velocity aliasing?
83
Answer
z No
These are sensors at a point versus

g
remote sensing
84
Exercise
z Place a check next to the TDWR
strength(s).
__WS detection in a low clutter,, wet

environment.
__WS detection in a high clutter / dry

environment.
85
Exercise (cont)
__Gravity wave wind shear detection
with no storm aloft.
__Aerial coverage
g
86
Exercise (cont)
z Place a check next to the LLWAS-
NE++ strength(s)
__WS detection in a high

g clutter / dry
y
environment
__Aerial coverage beyond glide path
__10 second update rate 87

Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)
34 systems commissioned
TDWR LLWAS
NEXRAD
ASR-9
WX Sensors;
ASOS,, AWOS,, AWSS,, SAWS
88
Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS)
Processes weather To produce weather

data from various products for ATC
weather systems
89
Situation Display (SD) used for air traffic flow
y tower,, TRACON,, center supervisors
control by p
90
Memphis - 5 Feb 2008
NCT
TDWRs
ITWS commissioned (blue ovals) – Nov 2010

91
ITWS Displays
z 33 ITWS locations with TDWR information
z 22 ITWS Displays without TDWR
information
– For planning and shared situational awareness
z 5 of these are associated with the Northern California TRACON
(NCT) where there is no TDWR
– 7 more expected in 2011
– Some of these aerodromes have wind shear
protection
t ti through
th h LLWAS-RS,
LLWAS RS bbutt iis nott
integrated with the ITWS
z LLWAS-RS for wind shear protection
z ITWS Display for situational awareness and planning
92
ITWS
z Safety
– ITWS MB/GF uses TDWR data
z ITWS improved algorithms (ARENA MB POD 95% and
a reduction in false alarms; PFA 5%)
z Efficiency
– Tower/TRACON/Enroute/Flow Control
z Communication to optimize traffic flow
– More weather p
products to aid in AT flow
decisions
z Storm cell tops (NEXRAD)
z 10/20 minute storm cell extrapolated positions (ASR-9)
(ASR 9)
z Long range precipitation (NEXRAD)
93
z ITWS – uses TDWR data for WS products
– MB range is 35 km, 1 minute update

– GF range is 60 km, 6 minute update
z Both displayed like the TDWR system

z Wind shear loss – red ovals;; filled ≥30 kt
z Gust Front – purple line detection; dashed lines 10- and
20- minute predictions; and wind behind front
94
z ITWS MB Detection improved over
TDWR
– In g
generatingg shear values and shapes
p
– In correlating shear with a storm
z Calculating VIL and

z Updating sounding to find appropriate VIL test
95
z ITWS MB Detection
– Shear (ΔV/ ΔR) threshold is 4 m/s/km, value that

is considered operationally significant
z For a WS of 20 knots (10 m/s) over a distance of 3 km;

the shear = 3.3 m/s/km
z <4 m/s/km; ITWS would not detect this shear
z >2.5 m/s/km; TDWR would detect this shear
96
z ITWS MB Detection
– Not expressed as shear value (kt/km)
– Expressed
E d as velocity
l it diff
difference (kt)
z Historically to be like the TDWR system

z Uses maximum vel. difference of a shear region
z Shear region is tested for 4m/s/km first
97
z MB Detection – ITWS
– VIL Test Advantages

z Reduces the false alarm rate compared
p to
TDWR
– VIL Test Disadvantages
z May miss wind shear in dry environment
z May miss gravity waves
98
STL TDWR
radial
velocities
Red circle
indicates WS
Pink pixels
within circle
are clutter
99
STL TDWR MB detection, 35K- overestimating
15K- wind shear because of clutter
100
STL ITWS MB detection, 15K- wind shear
is not fooled by clutter
101
Houston (HOU/IAH) ITWS display while in
HOU TDWR backup mode – note 50K-
102
Bottom right panel shows Houston ITWS wind
shear 25K- at HOU as opposed to previous frame
103
HOU TDWR
base data
TDWR and
ITWS use this
data to obtain
their shapes
ITWS has
shear constraint;
thus, usually
has smaller
shapes 104
z ITWS MB Detection
– POD > .9 for 15-25 knot loss

– POD > .95 for 30 knot loss and greater
z Runway corridor basis
– PFA < .05 for all losses
105
z ITWS MB Detection
– Advantages
z Reduces false alarms
z Reduces over warning
z Improves shear shape
z Also note: in some cases, MB Prediction

Algorithm provides at least 1 minute warning
that a WS will become a MB
– About 2/3 success rate for upgrade to MB from WS
106
WS Type – Convective
z ITWS MB Detection
– Disadvantages
z Misses some dry microbursts

z Misses some g
gravity
y wave type
y wind shears
107
z ITWS GF Detection
– Uses TDWR base data for ITWS MIGFA
z ITWS MIGFA merges multiple GF products

from multiple TDWRs (Washington D.C.,
Chicago, Houston, Miami, New York City)
z Blind spots mitigated with merge
108
IAH TDWR backup; HOU TDWR backup
(missed GFs over HOU) (missed GF over IAH)
109
Houston ITWS; both IAH and HOU have gust
fronts from merged product
110
HOU TDWR
radial velocities
111
IAH TDWR
radial velocities
112
z ITWS/LLWAS-NE++
– Same as TDWR/LLWAS-NE++
I
Integration
i EXCEPT
z Weak (15.-15.9 kt-) alerts need confirmation
from LLWAS vs. (15
(15-17.5
17.5 kt
kt-)) TDWR
z 20 kt- does not require confirmation from
LLWAS vs. TDWR which does for crossbeam
runway
z 15 kt+ from LLWAS needs confirmation from
ITWS MIGFA
z 15 – 20 kt+ from ITWS MIGFA needs
confirmation from LLWAS 113
3 May 1999 tornado near Amber, OK
photo by Oklahoman Staff

Staff, Paul B Southerland
114
3 May 1999 tornado in SW OKC
photo by Oklahoman Staff,

Staff Paul Hellstein
115
PSF TDWR reflectivity of 3 May 1999 tornado
116
PSF TDWR radial velocity of 3 May 1999 tornado
117
z Tornado – Impact to Aviation
– Extremely dangerous – structural failure
z Avoidance due to usual visibility

z Rain rapped and/or night
g tornados a g
greater
hazard
118
z Tornado - Impact to Aviation
– Hazardous to Aircraft
z Fokker F-28, Rotterdam, 6 Oct 1981, encountered
tornado/funnel circulation, wing detached
– Hazardous to Air Traffic Personnel

z Fort Wayne, Indiana Air Traffic Control Tower hit by
tornado on 8 October 1992
119
z Tornado – Doppler Radar Detection
– Coupled velocity signature across radial

z Opposite
pp signature
g of microburst
– Reflectivityy signature
g
z Hook echo
120
z Tornado Products for Aviation
– ITWS is
i currently
tl the
th only
l FAA system
t that
th t
provides a TORNADO product to ATC
– Uses NSSL Tornado Product (based on

NEXRAD)
– Tornado ICON on display indicates a tornado
detection
– Warning panel illuminates when tornado is within
10 nm off Air
Ai Traffic
T ffi Control
C t l Tower
T
121
ITWS tornado icon from OKC, 9 May 2003
122
z ITWS NSSL Tornado Product
– Flexible Parameters depend on
z Tornado type (gustnado vs supercell)

z Distance from radar
z Number of tornadoes
123
z ITWS NSSL Tornado Product
– Default Parameters are:
z Surface Circulation > 25 m/s

z Maximum Circulation in layer
y > 36 m/s
z Circulation layer > 1.5 km
z Distance 100 km
(sixth question) 124

Weather Systems Processor (WSP)
34/34 systems commissioned
Wavelength 10 cm
Peak Power 1.1
1 1 mw
EL Beam 5°
AZ Beam 1.4°
Range Gate ~116 m
4.8 scans per min
MB/pr/mot
p 30 sec
GF 2 min
Max vel 25 m/s
ASR-9
S / WSP
S
125
z Weather Systems Processor (WSP)
– Detects wind shear, gust fronts and tracks

storm movement
– Deployed at 34 locations in the U.S.

z Medium capacity airports with wind shear or/
z Large capacity airports with minimal wind
shear
126
WSP locations – red star
ASR 9 locations without WSP – blue dot
ASR-9
ASR-9s
Add TOL, RIC, JAX, HON

Subtract BNA, DAB, IAD, SGJ 127
z MB/GF Ranges
– MB range is 8.75 nm, 30 second update

– GF range is 15 nm, 2 minute update
z Wind shear loss – red ovals, filled ≥30 kt

z Gust front – p
purple
p line detection;; dashed lines 10- and
20- minute predictions; and wind behind front
z Both displayed like the TDWR/ITWS systems
128
z MB Detection Specifications – WSP
– POD ≥ .70 for wind shear ≥ 20 kt loss

– POD ≥ .80 for wind shear ≥ 30 kt loss
– POD ≥ .90
90 for wind shear ≥ 40 kt loss
z PFA ≤ .20 for wind shear ≥ 20 kt loss

129
WSP Geographic Situation Display (GSD); squall
line and GF ((blue lines are storm motion p
product))
130
z MB Detection – WSP
z 30 second update rate

z Modification to existing
g radar
z Minimal second trip returns
z Higher maximum ambiguous velocity
131
z MB Detection – WSP
– Microburst Detection Disadvantages
z WS not as easily detected as pencil beam

radars due to vertical smoothing
z Storm verification of level 1 precipitation (18
dBZ) difficult over ASR-9 – cone of silence
z WS range less than TDWR
132
z GF Detection – WSP
– MIGFA processes ASR-9 data
z POD ≥ .60 for WS ≥ 20 kt gain

z POD ≥ .75 for WS ≥ 30 kt gain
z PFA ≤ .15 for WS ≥ 20 kt gain

z PFA ≤ .10 for WS ≥ 30 kt gain
133
z GF Detection – WSP
– Advantages
z 2 minute update rate

z History
y and continuityy
z Less second trip
z Higher maximum ambiguous velocity
134
z GF Detection WSP
– Disadvantages
z Data is smooth in vertical

z Shallow ggust fronts more difficult to detect
z WS range less than TDWR
(seventh question)
135
GF Gain Alerts
WS system ARENA description Gain oriented to
RWY
LLWAS-RS Yes
TDWR N
No
ITWS No
WSP No
TDWR/LLWAS-NE Dual coverage – Yes
integration (Source
LLWAS NE)
LLWAS-NE)
TDWR/LLWAS-NE TDWR coverage only No
ITWS/LLWAS-NE Dual coverage – Sometimes

integration (source
both systems)
ITWS/LLWAS-NE ITWS coverage only No

136
System Contributions
www.rap.ucar.edu/applications/llwas/ws_related_accidents.htm
137
Wind Shear and Weather Products from Commissioned Systems
Product Update TDWR LLWAS-NE WSP ITWS

Product Type (minutes) & RS
Wind Shear Microburst 1, 1/6, 1/2, 1 √ √ √ √
MB Prediction 3 √
Gust Front1 6, 1/6, 2, 6 √ √ √ √
GF Prediction1 10-, 20-minute 6, -, 2, 6 √ √ √
Wind Shift 6, -, 2, 6 √ √ √
Precipitation Aerodrome – high resolution 1 √ √
Terminal Area 6, -, 1/2, 1/2 √ √ √
Long Range2 2½ √
Storm Motion3 6, -, 1, 1 √ √ √
Aero/Term
2 ½ Long g
Storm Extrapolated Position 1 Aero/Term √ √
2 ½ Long
Terminal Convective Weather Forecast 5 √
Anomalous Propagation Edit 1/2 √
Storm Cell Hail, Lightning, Echo Tops, Severe Storm 1 Aero √
Information Circulation 1/2 Term
2 ½ Long
Tornado Tornado 6 √
Term Winds Terminal Winds 5 √
Pilot Info Terminal Weather Information for Pilots4 1 √ √
138
1There are 1-minute propagation estimates in between algorithm
updates for radar based gust front detection.
2Sites that do not have the updated long-range precipitation
product have a 6-minute update.

3Storm motion product is in text form for TDWR and graphic form
for WSP and ITWS.

4Update rate is 1 minute during inclement weather and 10
minutes during fair weather

weather.
Other Notes:
- Colours depict product colour.
-Weather product update rates are fluid and may change due to
input data scan strategy time and site adaptable times.
(ninth question)
139
FAA LIDAR acquisition
z Characteristics
– Wavelength: 2022.5 nm
– Ave Power: 1 Watt
– Pulse Energy: 2 mJ
– PRF: 500 Hz
– Pulse width: 400 ns
– Aperture diameter: 10 cm
– Range res: 100 m
– Az res: .01
01 degrees
140
z Prototype system at KLAS
– To detect wind shear in high clutter/dry

environment
z Dry microburst and gust fronts
– 2/3 of outflows detected in summer 2005
z Terrain induced
z Dust devils
z Low-level
Low level jet
z Wake vortices (movie loop) 141
– Note that during heavy rain, the Doppler

(TDWR) is complementing as LIDAR is
attenuated
142
– Airport in city
z Difficult to find optimal wind sensor locations

due to buildings and construction
z Realestate uncertainties
z Strong case for system on airport grounds
143
z Accomplishments
– Optimized site location

z Minimize obstruction and clutter
– Wind shear detection algorithms

g upgraded
g
z MIT/LL algorithms used for MB and GF detections
z GF logic used to detect front when over LIDAR
z Accepted by FAA
144
z Future milestones
– LIDAR alerts integrated (early 2011)

z With TDWR
z With ITWS
(evaluation expected for integrated alerts)
– FAA certification (early 2013)

z Documentation, maintenance training, etc… in
meantime 145
Question
z List at least 3 wind shear or turbulence
phenomenon that the LIDAR can
detect?
146
Answer
z Dry wind shear (mb & gf)
z Terrain
z Low-level jet
z Dust devils
z Wake votices
147
Question
z List two advantages and one
disadvantage of the LIDAR?
148
Answer
z Advantages
– not clutter p
prone ((optimally
p y located))
– Detects dry type wind shears
– Can locate on airport
z Disadvantages
– Attenuation in rain/heavy fog/thick haze
z Horizontal range limited to aerodrome vicinity
149
WS Systems for ATM uses
z Elements useful to ATM
– Wind shear information
– Wind shift prediction
z Aerodrome for runwayy configuration
g change
g
– Terminal Wind Information
– Precipitation
p
z Movement
z Development
z Cloud tops and cell information

150
z Wind shear information
– PANS-ATM,, 6.7.3.3
z Wind shear included in MET conditions (as
prescribed by ATS authority) of suspended
i d
independent
d t parallel
ll l approaches
h ((spacing
i
<1525 m)
– Determine capacity changes associated
with wind shear impact on closely spaced
parallel runways
z Coordinate potential holds
151
z Wind shear information
– PANS-ATM, 7.2.6
z Noise abatement not determining
g factor in
runway nomination
– Wh
When wind
i d shear
h h
has bbeen reported
t d or fforecastt or
when thunderstorms are expected to affect the
approach or departure
152
z Wind prediction – products
– Machine Intelligent Gust Front Algorithm

z 10- and 20-minute g
gust front location
prediction
z Arrow behind gust front (or front) denotes the
s stained wind
sustained ind speed and direction behind
the front
– Averages in area 10 minutes behind the front
153
154
z Wind prediction product – ATM uses
– Coordinate runwayy configuration
g change
g
(tower/approach)
z Time of necessary configuration change

z Find gap in upstream traffic to optimize
approach h change
h
z Taxi aircraft to other end of runway
z Saves time/fuel
155
– Could be used to satisfyy PANS-ATM,,
6.6.4 Æ transmit to aircraft significant
changes in mean surface wind direction
and speed at start of final approach
z Mean headwind 10 kt
z Mean tailwind 2 kt
z Mean crosswind 5 kt
156
– Could be used to satisfy PANS-ATM, 7.2.6 Æ

Noise abatement not determining
g factor in
runway nomination when
z Crosswind component including gusts exceeds

• 15 kt
z T il i d componentt iincluding
Tailwind l di gusts
t exceeds
d
• 5 kt 157
z Precipitation – products
z 10- and 20-minute location of leading edge of

moderate precipitation
z ITWS/WSP displays – light blue dashed lines
z Note that black vectors are short term motion

(cell motion)
motion), while light blue dashed lines
represent motion over tens of minutes (line
motion)
z Storm tops provided for enroute planning
158
z Precipitation – products
z ITWS utilizes
– TDWR precip over the aerodrome
• High resolution
• Mitigates ASR cone of silence
– ASR precip in terminal area
• Faster update rate (30 sec – ave of sev
scans)
– NEXRAD precip i en-route
t
• Long range 159
160
z Precipitation products – ATM uses
z Aerodrome/Approach/Enroute coordination
– Runway capacity changes - reduction

• Estimated time of impact
• Duration of impact
• Total capacity reduction and impact
upstream
• Long
L d
duration
ti iimpact,
t groundd stops
t att
aerodromes within 1-2 hours flight time 161
– Runway capacity changes – increase (end

of event)
• Estimated end time of impact
• Plan upstream for continued approach
• Increases capacity quicker
162
z Optimize use of arrival gates/corner posts
– Divert early to another arrival gate allows

for
• Coordinated approach (avoid
unnecessary holds)
• less time
• saves fuel
163
z Precipitation forecast - products
z Terminal Convective Weather Forecast
(TCWF)
z Provides mod/high probability of significant
precipitation (level 3)
– Up to one hour
– Loop with 10-minute intervals from 30 min
b f
before to 1 hour
h ahead
h d (1 km
k resolution
l i
updated 5 min)
– Forecast accuracyy provided
p
– NEXRAD based data
164
– Range for en-route planning
TCWF in the left panel - mod/high probability
((light/bright
g g yyellow)) of level 3 or g
greater
precipitation expected in 30 minutes
www.ll.mit.edu/AviationWeather/tcwfp.html
ll it d /A i ti W th /t f ht l
165
z Precipitation forecast products – ATM
uses
– Anticipation of aerodrome capacity reduction

– Optimize time of arrival stops and resumption
– Long duration events involve coordination
between Approach and Enroute
– Determine suitable alternates
– Holds
H ld att hi
higher
h altitudes
ltit d if necessary
166
uses
z Feed into larger control centre
– Foster enroute/enroute coordination

– Use of other hubs during lull times
167
uses
z Airlines optimize location of aircraft

– Avoid having too many aircraft idle
z Airline crew management

– Plan for adjustment to crews (max hours
reached)
168
z Terminal winds – products
z Single Doppler & LIDAR can provide
– Vertical Azimuth Display
• Wind estimate at various altitudes

using sinusoid
169
170
z Multiple Doppler & LIDAR can provide
– Doppler analysis of wind field at various

altitudes (more accurate than VAD – two
or more measurements versus one)
171
z Other inputs
– Wind sensors
– Vertical profilers
– Aircraft measurements
– Model data (used as initial guess)
172
z Product:
– Wind information at various altitudes at

ATM points of interest
• Corner posts eevery
er one or ttwo-o
thousand feet vertical
• Outer marker
173
z Terminal winds product – ATM uses
z Determine spacing compression points

– Low-level jet (50 kt ~1 000 feet AGL)
– If flight rectangular flight pattern
• Ground speed reduced up to 100 kt from
downwind to final (50 kt tail to 50 kt head wind)
z Determine space needed upstream to keep

separation minimum on final
174
z Manage anomalies
– Wind typically west at busiest arrival post

– Anomaly one day with east wind at 10 000
feet
– Fast ground speed
– More difficult to sequence with other
aircraft from other arrival posts
175
z Manage anomalies
– Can optimize use of arrival posts for

proper sequencing
• reduce airspeed of incoming aircraft

• Utilize other gates if distance is not
increased
176

SP 01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SP 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICAO APAC

Wind Shear Systems

Christopher Keohan, RO-MET

z Main reference material:

App. 6, 6.1 - Evidence of WS

– A change in wind speed and/or direction

z3 kt/s excess thrust margin – if available

(third question) – first page of response

– Max intensity < 10 minutes

Wilson, Roberts, Kessinger and McCarthy; Microburst wind

Curl shows microburst outflow

Wolfson, Marilyn M et al.; 1994; Automated Microburst Wind 14

– Typically expressed as loss in airspeed in

– For FAA ATC

z Wind Shear ≥ 15 kt loss in less than 4 km

z Gust front – leading

– Series of cold pulses

– Radar thin line

Harald Edens at www.weather-photography.com

Harald Edens at www.weather-photography.com

locust.mmm.ucar.edu; Greg Thompson

locust.mmm.ucar.edu; Greg Thompson

– Line of low pressure (like a cold front)

z Aircraft can expect a gain in airspeed, thus a

– Onset of gust front on one wing first

– Lift greater on one wing than the other,

z Differential lift caused roll to left

– A) It gets windy in the cabin

– B) A loss of lift can result in a quick loss in

– C) Differential lift can cause a roll

– MB/GF display and alerts are consistent

– Wind shear loss = red oval

– 15A MBA 40K- 3MF CALM

Wind Shear Alert (WSA) Microburst Alert (MBA)

8.5 11.4 14.2 17.1 19.9 22.8

– MB range is 35 km, 1 minute update rate

z Wind shear loss – red ovals, filled ≥30 kt

– Wind shear shapes attributes

– POD > 90%

– PFA < 10%

– Microburst Detection Flaws (Missed Detections

z Ground clutter breakthrough

– Previous two missed wind shear detections

– Microburst Detection Advantages

z Large aerial coverage

z Usually associated with reflectivity thin line of

Gust front gain alerts

z POD ≈ 85% for wind shear strength > 20 knots

– Gust Front Detection Flaws

z GF aligned perpendicular to radar (blind spot)

– Gust Front Detection Flaws (missed detections

z Ground clutter breakthrough

– Gust Front Detection Advantages

z Large aerial coverage

z Short term forecast of WS possible (gust front

– Upgrade receiver & digital signal

– Prototype deployed at LAS, SLC

z 10 second update, CF 2 minute running average

z Triangulation/edges used to determine WS

– Wind shear value given (runway oriented)

– MB/GF Detection Flaws

– Microburst Detection Advantages

z Detects GF gain better than Doppler