Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

Winter Begins Jan 20th AWT


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Damage In Tolland said:

The next 24-36 hours separates the men from the boys . You have the model huggers who think each run is the final outcome.. and then  you have the few who understand what can and can’t happen based on this setup . And they end up the victors when the others come back as models come back 

Have yet to see reason to stray from yesterday's first call. ..8-14".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2019 at 5:27 PM, BombsAway1288 said:

I had to work that storm last March. All flights in and out were canceled until about 8PM when a few international flights went out. We closed the checkpoint basically all day and only reopened it at about 6PM because of those flights. Passenger and people were still out in the public areas all day but because all the checkpoints were closed, the airport was considered closed. It rarely happens though and if it does happen, it's only for a short time like I just explained. Only in 2015 did the airport completely close a couple of times to the point where they told us we could stay home and still get paid. When that happens the airport is really closed lol.

It's very interesting how MassPort manages this vs PANYNJ for very big storms. In JFK/EWR/LGA they seem to just let flights keep landing when possible, which gums up the whole airport and snow clearing infrastructure and causes massive delays for pax who do get in and out, missed connections, etc, and then it call cascades for days. Maybe they operate at 40% the day of the storm, but then they're at 60% the next day, and 80% the three days after. Which doesn't make sense.

MassPort cancels everything and gets all the plans out of the airport. I remember watching the March storm last year (and January, too, IIRC). Airlines manage it differently. IIRC, DL flew their evening schedule and then deadheaded all the planes out late (maybe even took some pax, but they were non-standard, high-four-digit-numbered flights). UA just canceled everything in after about 6. Not sure what AA/B6/whoever else did. But in any case, it means that the ramps are entirely clear and it's probably a lot easier to clear the airfield when it is devoid of anything moving than when you have to plow snow around active stands, ramps, taxiways and runways.

Will be interesting to see what they do Sunday, as with the latest models Sunday AM will be pretty snowy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Have yet to see reason to stray from yesterday's first call. ..8-14".

For the area you had that in it makes sense. If you split it roughly West/east into two halves, the southern part would fit 8-11”, the northern 11-14” nicely...that’s possibly how I might change it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

For the area you had that in it makes sense. If you split it roughly West/east into two halves, the southern part would fit 8-11”, the northern 11-14” nicely...that’s possibly how I might change it.

 

I will be more specific in the final call..but not bad for day 3.5-4 first guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

Will where to you believe the SE goal post is at 48 hours out given the upper air look

Prob a track that keeps roughly something like GHG to HFD all snow....that's prob the most realistic SE goalpost. Something a bit colder than NAM.

It's plausible with more trending. I wouldn't forecast that obviously.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

00Z NAM Wow!!

FYI, regarding 00Z NAM, recently came across an interesting study that analyzed NAM via Fourier time domain analysis in 156 global data series (essentially discrete events). Where Deutsche ICON and NAM coaligned at h200 within 48 hr instantations, given Z-Scores >0.9 and open channel Froude values <1.0, NAM outperformed power series Z by 0.95, with confidence levels of 0.98!.  (Fg) was assumed constant throughout the column in all instances, as was  the qAv product.  This found NAM thermal and slp placement far superior by 2 SD vs GFS and ECMWF determanistic Kronecker products.  Only 0.5 SD probabalistic with Sigma < 2 however the raw score null set was overly constrained so ...  Bottom line, setup here is perfect to push all your chips to the centre of the table on NAM. Seems crazy,  but true. - SPQR

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...