Open AccessForecaster Performance and Workload: Does Radar Update Time Matter?
Author(s) -
Katie A. Wilson,
Pamela L. Heinselman,
Charles M. Kuster,
Darrel M. Kingfield,
Ziho Kang
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
weather and forecasting
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.393
H-Index - 106
eISSN - 1520-0434
pISSN - 0882-8156
DOI - 10.1175/waf-d-16-0157.1
Subject(s) - tornado , supercell , workload , radar , computer science , lead time , meteorology , environmental science , wind speed , nowcasting , operations management , engineering , telecommunications , geography , operating system
Impacts of radar update time on forecasters’ warning decision processes were analyzed in the 2015 Phased Array Radar Innovative Sensing Experiment. Thirty National Weather Service forecasters worked nine archived phased-array radar (PAR) cases in simulated real time. These cases presented nonsevere, severe hail and/or wind, and tornadic events. Forecasters worked each type of event with approximately 5-min (quarter speed), 2-min (half speed), and 1-min (full speed) PAR updates. Warning performance was analyzed with respect to lead time and verification. Combining all cases, forecasters’ median warning lead times when using full-, half-, and quarter-speed PAR updates were 17, 14.5, and 13.6 min, respectively. The use of faster PAR updates also resulted in higher probability of detection and lower false alarm ratio scores. Radar update speed did not impact warning duration or size. Analysis of forecaster performance on a case-by-case basis showed that the impact of PAR update speed varied depending on the situation. This impact was most noticeable during the tornadic cases, where radar update speed positively impacted tornado warning lead time during two supercell events, but not for a short-lived tornado occurring within a bowing line segment. Forecasters’ improved ability to correctly discriminate the severe weather threat during a nontornadic supercell event with faster PAR updates was also demonstrated. Forecasters provided subjective assessments of their cognitive workload in all nine cases. On average, forecasters were not cognitively overloaded, but some participants did experience higher levels of cognitive workload at times. A qualitative explanation of these particular instances is provided.