Here is a summary of my experience in the 2008 EWP Spring Experiment:

• I was most impressed with CASA data
  • High resolution of storm scale features and rapid refresh of data
  • Adaptive scan strategy
  • Overcomes horizon problem
  • Overlapping radar coverage
  • Attenuation was a problem
  • Noisy data was also a problem but it appears that efforts to mitigate this were working
  • Wish we could have used the CASA network in real time

• Was not as impressed with the PAR data (did not see much difference in comparison to the 88D)….but must remember that an operational PAR will have better spatial resolution.
  • Got to use the PAR in real time for a supercell outbreak
  • Rapid rate of incoming data was both an advantage and a challenge…was difficult to keep up with the incoming data
  • FSI was useful with the PAR during this event but slowed the system down

• Rapid rate of incoming data will be a significant challenge for forecastsers
  • Will have to learn/be trained on how to selectively interrogate data
  • Will require more help from algorithms
  • Forecasters will fatigue more quickly

• Poor system performance and lack of familiarity with WDSSII was an obstacle for me to focus on evaluation of the data
  • Would be better if data could be viewed on AWIPS (perhaps AWIPS II)
  • Familiar procedures and color curves would help even more
  • The system had trouble keeping up with the incoming data (performance slowed considerably)

• I feel that interviews rather than surveys would be the best for getting feedback. Would lead to better (quality), more (quantity), and more targeted (specific/focused) communication.

• During the real time event there was a lot of commentary from individuals in the area of the workstation (PAR) and SA display. I found this to be somewhat distracting.

• Everyone that I interacted with during the evaluation was extremely helpful. I am thankful for and appreciate everyone’s hard work and helpfulness.

• Not sure what to say about gridded probabilistic warnings. I think this is a direction we need to go but the approach during this evaluation was very subjective. Ultimately this has to be much more objective to get consistency between forecasters and events. Both users and forecasters will need to have a better understanding of what theses warnings mean. That said, I thought the software was a good tool for drawing the warnings.

I am thankful for the opportunity to participate.

Mike Cammarata (NWS Columbia SC – Week 1 Participant)