AVAPS Flight Summary

HS3 2012

NOAA ESRL

Gary WickRyan SpackmanDarren Jackson

Dave Costa

NCAR

Terry HockDean LauritsenCharlie MartinXuanyong Xu

NOAA AOML

Michael BlackJason Dunion

Dropsonde Observations

Flight Target Sondes Comments

5-6 Sep 2012 Leslie 30 Transit, Limited Ku

11-12 Sep Nadine 34 System fault -– parachute cap anomaly;RF noise issue emerges in flight

14-15 Sep Nadine 70 RFI continues

19-20 Sep Nadine 76 RFI continues

22-23 Sep Nadine 58 RFI continues

26-27 Sep Nadine 75 RFI improves

Total Sondes 343

Dropsonde Observations

Dropsonde Achievements

• First operations with Ku communications:

Download raw D-files from AV-6 in flight

Real-time ASPEN processing

Near real-time posting of skew-T plot to MTS

Near real-time transmission to GTS

Reference to HS3 sonde data in NHC forecast discussions for Nadine

• Plans for parallel GFS model runs• Dropsonde deployment flexibility in various Atlantic

FIRs (e.g., box module insertion in real time)

AVAPS Lessons LearnedFlight Ops

1 – Two AVAPS team members required in the PMOF:

Dedicated drop operator necessary because of intensive comms

AVAPS science seat coordinates drop pattern and any changes with mission scientists and shuttles data to processing team

2 – Additional team required for real-time processing

Instrument Issues

1 - Parachute cap manufacturing anomaly being addressed

2 – RF noise interference issue is under investigation

Science Directions• Tropical-extratropical transition: trough interactions• Aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions: Role of SAL• HS3 science investigations: Build collaborations with

investigator teams that are using the dropsonde data

Courtesy of G. Wick, NOAA

Sep 26 Nadine Mission

Dry, stable SAL

Dry, stable continental air

Moist core

How could Nadine survive and even flourish in such a dry, stable environment? Is the core within a “protected pouch”? How does convection overcome the stable low-level environment and inversion? Are differences in SST and surface air temperature important to enhance surface fluxes?

Courtesy of M. Black, NOAA

NASA Global Hawk – HS3 2012

• Dropsonde RF Signal Strength vs Time for First 6 dropsHS3 2012: Case 1 – Science Flight #1 (transit)

Normal AVAPS ‘no signal’ noise floor

• Dropsonde RF Signal Strength vs Time for First 6 dropsHS3 2012: Case 2 – Science Flight #2

Why has the ‘no signal’ noise floor increased on Drops 2 through 6 (shown here) and all subsequent drops?

Drop 1, the ‘Bermuda’ drop

HS3 2012: Case 1 – Science Flight #1 (transit)• Two AVAPS 400 MHz Spectrum Analyzer data frames prior to takeoff• Note average noise floor jump from ~ -110 dBm to ~ -102 dBm• These plots are 6 seconds apart in time

UTC Time - 20:16:00 UTC Time - 20:16:06

approx mean: -110 dBmapprox mean: -102 dBm

HS3 2012: Case 1 – Science Flight #1 (transit)• GH IWG1 data

prior to takeoff

UTC Time of cursor20:16:06

(same UTC time as 2nd AVAPS Spectrum Analyzer plot)

GH Takeoff ^

GH Pressure Altitude

GH Aircraft Heading 20:16:06 Z ground taxi begins

HS3 2012: Case 1 – Science Flight #1 (transit)• Zoomed-in detail of previous IWG1 aircraft data slide UTC Time = 20:16:06

GH Aircraft Heading 20:16:06 Z ground taxi begins