Group meeting: Summary for HFIP 2012

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Multi-physics Multi-IC Ensemble Plan for 2012 Hurricane Season Zhan Zhang and Vijay Tallapragada NCEP/EMC HFIP Regional Ensemble Conference Call March.

Advertisements

1 NCEP Operational Regional Hurricane Modeling Strategy for 2014 and beyond Environmental Modeling Center, NCEP/NOAA/NWS, NCWCP, College Park, MD National.

Xuguang Wang, Xu Lu, Yongzuo Li, Ting Lei

Further Exploring the Potential for Assimilation of Unmanned Aircraft Observations to Benefit Hurricane Analyses and Forecasts Jason Sippel - NCEP EMC.

EnKF Assimilation of Simulated HIWRAP Radial Velocity Data Jason Sippel and Scott Braun - NASAs GSFC Yonghui Weng and Fuqing Zhang - PSU.

Ensemble Forecasting of Hurricane Intensity based on Biased and non-Gaussian Samples Zhan Zhang, Vijay Tallapragada, Robert Tuleya HFIP Regional Ensemble.

Observing System Simulation Experiments to Evaluate the Potential Impact of Proposed Observing Systems on Hurricane Prediction: R. Atlas, T. Vukicevic,

Brian J. Etherton Developmental Testbed Center Survey and summary of ensemble systems 21 November 2011.

5/22/201563rd Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference, March 2-5, 2009, St. Petersburg, FL Experiments of Hurricane Initialization with Airborne Doppler.

GFDL Hurricane Model Ensemble Performance during the 2010 Atlantic Season 65 th IHC Miami, FL 01 March 2011 Tim Marchok Morris Bender NOAA / GFDL Acknowledgments:

HFIP Ensemble Products Subgroup Sept 2, 2011 Conference Call 1.

PSU realtime ensemble with ARW-EnKF 3 domains (40.5, 13.5&4.5km), 60-member ensemble, assimilate TDR Vr Notes: (1) mean of 60-member ensemble forecast.

AHW Ensemble Data Assimilation and Forecasting System Ryan D. Torn, Univ. Albany, SUNY Chris Davis, Wei Wang, Steven Cavallo, Chris Snyder, James Done,

Assimilating Sounding, Surface and Profiler Observations with a WRF-based EnKF for An MCV Case during BAMEX Zhiyong Meng & Fuqing Zhang Texas A&M University.

Towards Assimilating Clear-Air Radar Observations with an WRF-Based EnKF Yonghui Weng, Fuqing Zhang, Larry Carey Zhiyong Meng and Veronica McNeal Texas.

Realtime Analysis of Model ICs Wallace Hogsett, NHC 1.

The Relative Contribution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Uncertainty in TC Intensity Forecasts Ryan D. Torn University at Albany, SUNY World Weather Open Science.

1 Short term plan to assist 2011 HWRF implementation HFIP Stream 1 Regional Hurricane Model Diagnostics Planning Meeting, 11/08/2010.

Impact of the 4D-Var Assimilation of Airborne Doppler Radar Data on Numerical Simulations of the Genesis of Typhoon Nuri (2008) Zhan Li and Zhaoxia Pu.

The Hurricane Weather Research & Forecasting (HWRF) Prediction System Next generation non-hydrostatic weather research and hurricane prediction system.

Impact of targeted dropsonde observations on the typhoon forecasts during T-PARC Hyun Mee Kim, Byoung-Joo Jung, Sung Min Kim Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences,

Observing Strategy and Observation Targeting for Tropical Cyclones Using Ensemble-Based Sensitivity Analysis and Data Assimilation Chen, Deng-Shun 3 Dec,

Implementation of New Air-Sea Exchange Coefficients(Cd/Ch) into the Operational HWRF Model: Impact on Hurricane Intensity Forecast Skill Young C. Kwon,

Evaluation and Development of Ensemble Prediction System for the Operational HWRF Model Zhan Zhang, V. Tallapragada, R. Tuleya, Q. Liu, Y. Kwon, S. Trahan,

NHC Activities, Plans, and Needs HFIP Diagnostics Workshop August 10, 2012 NHC Team: David Zelinsky, James Franklin, Wallace Hogsett, Ed Rappaport, Richard.

Ligia Bernardet 1*, E. Uhlhorn 2, S. Bao 1* & J. Cione 2 1 NOAA ESRL Global Systems Division, Boulder CO 2 NOAA AOML Hurricane Research Division, Miami.

Predictability and dynamics of the rapid intensification of Hurricane Edouard (2014) Erin Munsell and Fuqing Zhang (Penn State) Jason Sippel (EMC/IMSG)

DATA ASSIMILATION FOR HURRICANE PREDICTION Experimental system and results of semi-operational implementation during the 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Season.

Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP): Where do we stand after 3 years? Bob Gall – HFIP Development Manager Fred Toepfer—HFIP Project manager Frank.

Evaluation of Experimental Models for Tropical Cyclone Forecasting in Support of the NOAA Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP) Barbara G. Brown,

Ensemble Kalman filter assimilation of Global-Hawk-based data from tropical cyclones Jason Sippel, Gerry Heymsfield, Lin Tian, and Scott Braun- NASAs GSFC.

The Advanced Hurricane WRF (AHW) Ensemble Data Assimilation System: Current Status and Future Plans Ryan D. Torn, Univ. Albany, SUNY Chris Davis, Wei Wang,

Research on the HWRF Model: Intensification and Uncertainties in Model Physics Research on the HWRF Model: Intensification and Uncertainties in Model Physics.

Stream 1.5 Runs of SPICE Kate D. Musgrave 1, Mark DeMaria 2, Brian D. McNoldy 1,3, and Scott Longmore 1 1 CIRA/CSU, Fort Collins, CO 2 NOAA/NESDIS/StAR,

Real-Time High-Resolution MM5 and WRF Forecasts during RAINEX John P. Cangialosi 1*, S. S. Chen 1, W. Zhao 1, D. Ortt 1 W. Wang 2 and J. Michalakas 2 1.

Studying impacts of the Saharan Air Layer on hurricane development using WRF-Chem/EnKF Jianyu(Richard) Liang Yongsheng Chen 6th EnKF Workshop York University.

An Examination Of Interesting Properties Regarding A Physics Ensemble 2012 WRF Users’ Workshop Nick P. Bassill June 28 th, 2012.

The Hyperspectral Environmental Suite (HES) and Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) will be flown on the next generation of NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental.

Improved Statistical Intensity Forecast Models: A Joint Hurricane Testbed Year 2 Project Update Mark DeMaria, NOAA/NESDIS, Fort Collins, CO John A. Knaff,

Doppler Lidar Winds & Tropical Cyclones Frank D. Marks AOML/Hurricane Research Division 7 February 2007.

Predicting Hurricanes with Explicit Convection: The Advanced Hurricane-research WRF (AHW) Chris Davis NCAR Earth System Laboratory Mesoscale and Microscale.

1 Current and planned research with data collected during the IFEX/RAINEX missions Robert Rogers NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division.

Munehiko Yamaguchi 12, Takuya Komori 1, Takemasa Miyoshi 13, Masashi Nagata 1 and Tetsuo Nakazawa 4 ( ) 1.Numerical Prediction.

NOAA Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project Development Fred Toepfer, HFIP Manager Bob Gall, HFIP Development Manager.

Hurricane Joaquin Frank Marks AOML/Hurricane Research Division 10 May 2016 Frank Marks AOML/Hurricane Research Division 10 May 2016 Research to Improve.

2. WRF model configuration and initial conditions  Three sets of initial and lateral boundary conditions for Katrina are used, including the output from.

A Few Words on Hurricane Forecasts

Xuexing Qiu and Fuqing Dec. 2014

Microwave Assimilation in Tropical Cyclones

A look at hurricane force extratropical cyclones

Advisor: Dr. Fuqing Zhang

Rosenstial School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

Enhancement of Wind Stress and Hurricane Waves Simulation

Development and Evaluation of a Multi-functional Data Assimilation Testbed Based on EnKF and WRFVar with Various Hybrid Options Yonghui Weng, Fuqing Zhang,

A few examples of heavy precipitation forecast Ming Xue Director

WP-3D Orion Instrumentation

Dynamics and predictability of the rapid intensification of Hurricane Edouard (2014) Erin Munsell Fall 2015 Group Meeting December 11th, 2015.

A Story of the PSU Hurricane System

Jianyu Liang (York U.) Yongsheng Chen (York U.) Zhiquan Liu (NCAR)

Coupled atmosphere-ocean simulation on hurricane forecast

Christopher Melhauser, Fuqing Zhang, Yonghui Weng, Jason Sippel

IMPROVING HURRICANE INTENSITY FORECASTS IN A MESOSCALE MODEL VIA MICROPHYSICAL PARAMETERIZATION METHODS By Cerese Albers & Dr. TN Krishnamurti- FSU Dept.

Defining Uncertainty in Hurricane Maximum Surface Wind Estimation

CAPS Real-time Storm-Scale EnKF Data Assimilation and Forecasts for the NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Forecasting Experiments: Towards the Goal.

Integration of NCAR DART-EnKF to NCAR-ATEC multi-model, multi-physics and mutli- perturbantion ensemble-RTFDDA (E-4DWX) forecasting system Linlin Pan 1,

Impact of Assimilating AMSU-A Radiances on forecasts of 2008 Atlantic TCs Initialized with a limited-area EnKF Zhiquan Liu, Craig Schwartz, Chris Snyder,

2007 Mei-yu season Chien and Kuo (2009), GPS Solutions

Lightning Assimilation Techniques

Verification of Tropical Cyclone Forecasts

The impact of ocean surface and atmosphere on TOA mircowave radiance

Presentation transcript:

Group meeting: Summary for HFIP 2012 05/20/2013 Good morning. I’ll summarize PSU 2012 work here.

Outline APSU 2012 stream 1.5 system configuration; System update before 2012 hurricane season; Performance of 2012 real-time; APSU retrospective runs for 2008-2012 TDR cases; ANPS retrospective runs for 2008-2012 AL storms; Sensitive experiments on initial fields; DA Tiger Team Recon experiment. This report will introduce the APSU 2012 stream 1.5 system configuration; what we made for updating this system, the 2012 realtime performance. Also I’ll present the retrospective runs for all 102 applicable TDR cases during 2008 and 2012, and no data assimilation runs for all Atlantic storms during 2008 and 2012. Then I’ll talk about what we are doing and what we will do before this hurricane season.

1.1 PSU ARW-EnKF system Configurations V3.4.1 Cumulus Grell-Devenyi ensemble (27 km domain only) Microphysics WSM 6-class graupel PBL YSU Surface Layer Monin-Obukov Land Surface thermal diffusion Radiation Rrtm / Dudhia Air-sea flux Green and Zhang 60-member ensemble Gaspairi & Cohn 99' covariance localization with varying RoI IC & BC: GFS using 3DVAR background uncertainty Hourly assimilation with TDR over all 3 domains D1: 379x244x27kmx44sigma D2: 304x304x9km D3: 304x304x3km There are 2 streams for PSU in 2012. Stream 1.5 named ATCF ID APSU is ARW deterministic forecast initialized with TDR data assimilation, while stream 2.0 ANPS is ARW deterministic forecast initialized with operational GFS analysis. Both of them have the same WRF model configuration. They have 3 domains with 27,9,3 km resolution, the out domain is fixed, the 2 inner domains are centered by the TCVital data. For TDR data assimilation, there are 60 members initialized with operational GFS and perturbed by WRFDA. ATCF ID: APSU: stream 1.5, ARW 3-km deterministic forecast initialized with TDR assimilation; ANPS: stream 2.0, ARW 3-km deterministic forecast initialized with operational GFS Analysis.

The forecast will be available and verified 1.2 APSU workflow Deterministic Forecast with fixed domains Deterministic Forecast with moving nested domains by vortex Ensemble Forecast Ensemble Forecast Ensemble Forecast SOs from 1st leg SOs from legs The last leg 00h -12h The forecast will be available and verified since this time. wrf-3dvar produce 60 members from GFS analysis with 3 domains GFS forecast as BCs EnKF with radar Vr EnKF with radar Vr EnKF with radar Vr The APSU system is initialized 12h early with GFS operational analysis, and then perturbed by WRFDA, and then integrated the 60 members to the time when the 1st leg SO is available. Then the system assimilates TDR hourly till the end of the TDR mission. After the assimilation, the time of the analysis will be shifted to the closet time of 00, 6 12 or 18 Z, and GFS forecasts 6 hour early will be used as the boundary condition. Usually there are about 2 to 5 legs for one NOAA P3 mission during -3h and 2h

2.1 APSU system update before 2012 demo: 30 to 60 ensemble member Pmin (mb) Vmax (kt) Track (km) Red Solid: 30-member Red dash: 60-member According to our research work on EnKF ensemble number for hurricane Katrina, we found that 60-member EnKF has better covariance and improves EnKF analysis in terms of winds and pressure. So we updated our system to 60 members. This slide shows the comparison between 30- and 60- member EnKF based on 2011 system (A4PS). The 59-case run shows 60-member EnKF improves hurricane intensity forecast between 24~96 hours lead-time. Mean absolute forecast errors homogeneously averaged for 2008-2010 TDR cases. BASE: HFIP baseline; A4PS: 4.5-km EnKF with 30 members; A4P6: 4.5-km EnKF with 60 members

2. 2 APSU system update before 2012 demo: 4. 5 km- 35 levels to 3 2.2 APSU system update before 2012 demo: 4.5 km- 35 levels to 3.0 km - 43 levels Pmin error Track error Vmax error Pink dash: 4.5 km Red : 3.0 km to be consistent with the NHC operational Hurricane WRF model. We increased the model resolutions from horizon 4.5 km to 3.0 km and vertical 35 levels to 43 levels. This update seems make smaller pressure error. Mean absolute forecast errors homogeneously averaged for 2008-2011 TDR cases. A4PS: 4.5-km EnKF; APSU: 3.0-km EnKF.

2.3 APSU system update before 2012 demo: air-sea surface flux Pmin error (mb) Vmax error (kt) Solid lines: error Dash lines: bias Track error (km) 2011 system 2012 system Surface fluxes are believed to be important in determining tropical cyclone intensity. Here we tested the schemes in WRF version 3.3.1 and 3.4.0, also we tested a uniquely modified version by combining of schemes Charnock and Garratt. This slide shows the forecast error and bias. The result shows that the 2012 “APSU” system has smaller forecast error and bias. Mean absolute forecast errors homogeneously averaged for 2008-2011 TDR case. A4PS-2011system (yellow) : PSU 2011 stream-1.5 system, which has 4.5 km horizontal resolution and Charnock TC surface flux scheme. APSU: PSU 2012 stream-1.5 system ; APSU-(Ch+Ga)/2: the scheme by combining the Charnock and the updated Garratt schemes by Fuqing Zhang, where CD was allowed to increase above 2.4x10-3 at high wind speeds, but at half the rate of increase that is found at low wind speeds .

3.1 APSU 2012 stream 1.5: deterministic forecast 2012 NOAA TDR cases: Alberto (1), Isaac (9), Leslie (3) and Sandy (7). Due to NOAA Jet computing resource issue, we only operated 16 missions for hurricane Isaac and Sandy in real-time. Isaac Track Vmax There are 20 available NOAA-P3 airborne radar missions in 2012 hurricane season for Atlantic tropical storm Alberto (1 mission), hurricane Isaac (9 missions), Leslie (3 missions) and Sandy (7 missions). Due to NOAA Jet computing resource issue, we only operated 8 and 7 missions for hurricane Isaac and Sandy in real-time, respectively. This slide shows the track and intensity forecasts for hurricane Isaac and Sandy. The blue lines are for ANPS, which are initialized from GFS without TDR data assimilation, the red lines are APSU which assimilated TDR observation in real-time. For hurricane Isaac, the intensity for both ARW forecasts are much stronger than the best track. Sandy Track Vmax PSU ARW-EnKF 2012 demo system real-time forecasts for hurricane Isaac (up) and Sandy (down). ANPS is the ARW forecast without data assimilation, while APSU is the PSU ARW-EnKF forecast initialized with the EnKF analysis by assimilating NOAA airborne radar observations.

3.1 APSU 2012 stream 1.5: deterministic forecast error Isaac + Sandy Track error (km) Vmax error (kt) Track and Intensity forecast error for PSU 2012 stream 1.5 runs. APSU: PSU stream 1.5 with TDR ANPS: PSU stream 2.0 with GFS analysis OFCL, HWRF, GFDL and GFS are operational forecasts. Isaac Here shows the position and intensity error for 2012 real-time runs. The above panels are total averaged absolute error for hurricane Isaac and sandy, while the bottom smaller figures show them separately. Comparing to the PSU 2 streams, APSU has smaller intensity error than ANPS which doesn’t assimilate TDR observation. For APSU, the forecast for hurricane Sandy is better than those for hurricane Isaac. The APSU forecast error in both position and intensity is one the smallest error products. Sandy

3.1 APSU 2012 stream 1.5: ensemble track forecast 00Z/26 12Z/26 00Z/27 This slide shows the exemplar APSU ensemble track forecasts for hurricane Sandy. It may be difficult to systematically evaluate the performance of any probabilistic forecast with a limited number of cases, the ensemble forecast tracks initialized with the Enkf perturbations provide case-dependent uncertainties associated with the deterministic track, and the ensemble forecast spread covers well the best track and the operational GFDL and HWRF forecasts. 12Z/27 00Z/28 12Z/28 APSU Real-time ensemble track forecasts for hurricane Sandy with TDR assimilation.

3.1 APSU 2012 stream 1.5: ensemble intensity forecast 00Z/26 12Z/26 00Z/27 For intensity forecasts, the ensemble forecast initialized with EnKF perturbation 12Z/27 00Z/28 12Z/28 APSU Real-time ensemble intensity forecasts for hurricane Sandy with TDR assimilation.

3.1 APSU 2012 stream 1.5: wind swatch and probabilities sample APSU surface wind swatch APSU deterministic forecast surface wind swatch and ensemble surface wind forecast probability for hurricane Sandy initialized at 00Z/26 Oct 2012. Probability = hitted members /total members 34 kt surface wind probability 50 kt surface wind probability 64 kt surface wind probability This slide shows the spatial distribution of the maximum surface wind speed in the deterministic forecast by the PSU WRF-EnKF system (using hourly output), and Ensemble-derived probabilities of maximum wind speed exceeding (at any time during the forecast) 35, 50 and 64 knots, respectively for hurricane Sandy available at 00Z/26 October 2012.

3.1 APSU 2012 stream 1.5: precipitation forecast sample APSU 96-h deterministic rainfall forecast NWS 4km 96-h rainfall 100 mm 96-h rainfall forecast probability derived from APSU ensemble forecast This slide shows the 96-h accumulated precipitation for APSU deterministic forecast available at 00Z/26 October 2012, and its ensemble-derived probability of accumulated precipitation exceeding 100 mm. The observation is NWS 4km 24h accumulated precipitation product. Spatial distribution of the 96-h (12Z26 to 12Z 30) accumulated rainfall (up) and the ensemble-derived probability of accumulated precipitation exceeding 100 mm (left) for hurricane Sandy initialized at 00Z/26 Oct 2012.

3.2 ANPS 2012 stream 2.0 performance Track error (km) Vmax error (kt) In 2012, we conducted 762 forecasts in real-time for stream 2 ANPS. The homogenize verification indicates that ANPS has a good track forecast, and ANPS, GFS and official are the 3 smallest position error forecasts. But the intensity forecast error is not we expected. The bias shows that the ANPS intensity forecasts are much stronger than others. GFS and ANPS Negative bias – GFS forecast is weaker than others ANPS forecast is much stronger than others ANPS 2012 stream 2.0 system real-time forecasts for Atlantic storms. Total 762 forecasts were made in 2012 for storms and invests.

3.2 ANPS cases: intensity forecast Isaac Leslie Nadine Sandy Here shows

4.1 APSU for 2008-2012 TDR cases Year Cases Storm (cases) 2008 35 Dolly (6), Fay (6), Gustav (6), Ike (6), Kyle(8), Paloma(3) 2009 10 Ana (1), Claudette (4), Danny (5) 2010 25 Alex (1), Two (3), Earl (11), Karl (4), Gaston (1), Tomas (5) 2011 13 Irene (7), Lee (1), Ophelia (1), Rina (4) 2012 19 Isaac (9), Leslie (3), Sandy (7) Total 102 22 storms

4.1 2008-2012 APSU Errors Track error (km) Vmax error (kt) with bias-corrected APSU forecast error for 102 TDR cases during 2008-2012. Average uncertainty in Best track: Landsea, C., and J. Franklin, 2013

5.1 ANPS for 2008-2012 Atlantic Storms Track error (km) Vmax error (kt) ANPS forecast error homogeneously averaged over 2140 cases of 2008-2012 Atlantic storms. OFCL has the smallest track and intensity error; ANPS has the same track error as GFS, but has smaller intensity error; Initial intensity bias for ANPS and GFS are very large; ANPS is Y2012 system, others are operational systems.

5.1 ANPS yearly track errors during 2008-2012 2008, 398 cases 2009, 167 cases 2010, 481 cases 2011, 470 cases 2012, 624 cases ANPS track forecast error.

5.1 ANPS yearly intensity errors during 2008-2012 2008, 398 cases 2009, 167 cases 2010, 481 cases GFS initial bias is more and more smaller in years; ANPS has smaller intensity error than GFS during 2008-2010; ANPS after 72h is worse than GFS in 2011; ANPS is worse than GFS in 2012; 2011, 470 cases 2012, 624 cases ANPS intensity forecast error.

6. 1 Different Global Forecasts for ANPS: GFS vs 6.1 Different Global Forecasts for ANPS: GFS vs. CFSRv2 for 2012 Atlantic Storms Track error (km) Vmax error (kt)

6. 2 Different Global Forecasts for ANPS: GFS_2010 vs 6.2 Different Global Forecasts for ANPS: GFS_2010 vs. GFS_2012 for 2010 Atlantic Storms (only some cases during 8/1-9/30/2010) Track error (km) Vmax error (kt) GFS_2012 data are provided by Vijay. ANPS for all 2010 AL

7 Working and Work Plan: DA Tiger Team Recon experiment ATCF ID: APCT (APCI): ConTrol. APRC (APRI): ReCon (FL + drops) APAR (APAI): All Recon (Doppler + FL + drops) Experiment design: The system configurations are the same as APSU; The system is initialized with operational GFS, and cycled every 3 hours till the end of the storm or the storm moves to the north of 45N or the east of 30W ; The inner domains follow Tcvitals; Assimilating obs. Within the area of 1200kmx1200km around the storm every 3 hours; Environment fields (out of the 1200kmx1200km area) are replaced by GFS operational analysis every 6 hours; Deterministic forecasts are conducted every 6 hours.

7. DA Tiger Team: cases 2010 2011 2012 Total Data source Year Storm CNTL FLDP FDTR 2010 01-Alex 062500-070112 062518-070100 062900 07-Earl 082600-090400 082900-090400 13-Karl 091412-091718 091418-091718 091300-091618 19-Richard 102012-102512 102018-102500 102300 21-Tomas 102912-110718 102918-110700 110400-110700 2011 09-Irene 082000-082818 082100-082812 082400-082712 13-Lee 090200-090306 090200 16-Ophelia 092012-092900 092312-092900 092418 18-Rina 102212-102800 102312-102800 102600-102718 2012 09-Isaac 082000-082900 082112-082906 082300-082900 12-Leslie 083000-090812 090712-090812 14-Nadine 091000- 100318 18-Sandy 102100-102918 102212-102918 102600-102900 Total 13 500 cases Data source GFS: Jet HSMS: /mss/fdr/YYYY/MM/DD/grib/ftp/7/0/96/0_259920_0, grib2. Flight level data: ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/pub/data/flightlevel, netcdf and ascii formats. Dropsonde data: /mss/fdr/2012/10/25/data/dropsonde/netcdf, netcdf. TDR: JET: /lfs2/projects/hfip-psu/yweng/Data/Airborne/SO/YYYY.

Plans Finish the Recon Experiment; Analysis the inner-core observation impact on hurricane forecast; Set up the 2013 Demo system; Analysis the impact of initial fields from different global modes.

7. DA Tiger Team: APCT for 2012 Isaac Leslie Sandy Nadine Isaac Nadine Track Vmax Isaac Leslie Sandy Nadine APCT track and intensity forecast ANPS intensity forecast Isaac Nadine Leslie Sandy

7. DA Tiger Team: APCT for 2011 Track Vmax Irene Lee Ophelia Rina

7. DA Tiger Team: APCT for 2010 Alex Earl Karl Richard Tomas Track Vmax Karl Richard Tomas

7. DA Tiger Team: APCT errors for 2010-2012 Track error (km) Vmax error (kt)

7. DA Tiger Team: APCT errors each year Track error (km) Vmax error (kt) 2010, 140 cases 2011, 130 cases 2012, 230 cases