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
