the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
EUNADICS early warning system dedicated to support aviation in case of crisis from natural airborne hazard and radionuclide cloud
- 1Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy (BIRA), Brussels, 1180, Belgium
- 2Service Spectroscopy, Quantum Chemistry and Atmospheric Remote Sensing (SQUARES), Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, 1050, Belgium
- 3Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l'Analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA), Tito Scalo (PZ), 85050, Italy
- 4Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), Helsinski, 00101, Finland
- 5German Aerospace Center (DLR), Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
- 6Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO), Reykjavík, 105, Iceland
- 7Osservatorio Etneo, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Catania, 95125, Italy
- 8Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG), Vienna, 1190, Austria
- 9Arnold Scientific Consulting, Manresa, 08242, Spain
- 10Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Helsinki, 00880, Finland
- 11Klaus Sievers Aviation Weather (KSAW), Lenggries, 83661, Germany
- 12Bridging Markets and Technologies Services Gmbh (BRIMATECH), Vienna, 1030, Austria
- 13Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Payerne, 1530, Switzerland
- 14Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, 3731 GK, the Netherlands
- 15Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium (KMI-IRM), Brussels, 1180, Belgium
- 16Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Norrköping, 601 76, Sweden
- 17Paris-Lodron-University Salzburg (PLUS), 5020, Austria
- 18Institute of Energy Technologies, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, 08028, Spain
- 19Austro Control Oesterreichische Gesellschaft für Zivilluftfahrt Mbh (ACG), Schwechat, 1300, Austria
- 20Bundesministerium für Landesverteidigung und Sport (BMLVS), Vienna, 1090, Austria
- 21Flightkeys (FLIGHTKEYS), Vienna, 1070, Austria
- 22National Centre for Meteorological Research (CNRM/Météo-France), Toulouse, 31057, France
- 23European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Reading, RG2 9AX, United Kingdom
- anow at: EUMETSAT
- bnow at: the University of Iceland
- 1Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy (BIRA), Brussels, 1180, Belgium
- 2Service Spectroscopy, Quantum Chemistry and Atmospheric Remote Sensing (SQUARES), Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, 1050, Belgium
- 3Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Metodologie per l'Analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA), Tito Scalo (PZ), 85050, Italy
- 4Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), Helsinski, 00101, Finland
- 5German Aerospace Center (DLR), Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
- 6Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO), Reykjavík, 105, Iceland
- 7Osservatorio Etneo, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Catania, 95125, Italy
- 8Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG), Vienna, 1190, Austria
- 9Arnold Scientific Consulting, Manresa, 08242, Spain
- 10Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), Helsinki, 00880, Finland
- 11Klaus Sievers Aviation Weather (KSAW), Lenggries, 83661, Germany
- 12Bridging Markets and Technologies Services Gmbh (BRIMATECH), Vienna, 1030, Austria
- 13Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Payerne, 1530, Switzerland
- 14Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, 3731 GK, the Netherlands
- 15Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium (KMI-IRM), Brussels, 1180, Belgium
- 16Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Norrköping, 601 76, Sweden
- 17Paris-Lodron-University Salzburg (PLUS), 5020, Austria
- 18Institute of Energy Technologies, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, 08028, Spain
- 19Austro Control Oesterreichische Gesellschaft für Zivilluftfahrt Mbh (ACG), Schwechat, 1300, Austria
- 20Bundesministerium für Landesverteidigung und Sport (BMLVS), Vienna, 1090, Austria
- 21Flightkeys (FLIGHTKEYS), Vienna, 1070, Austria
- 22National Centre for Meteorological Research (CNRM/Météo-France), Toulouse, 31057, France
- 23European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Reading, RG2 9AX, United Kingdom
- anow at: EUMETSAT
- bnow at: the University of Iceland
Abstract. The purpose of the EUNADICS prototype Early Warning System (EWS) is to proceed the combined use of harmonise data products from satellite, ground-based and in situ instruments to produce alerts of airborne hazard (volcanic, dust, smoke and radionuclide clouds), satisfying the requirement of ATM stakeholders (www.eunadics.eu). The alert products developed by EUNADICS EWS (i.e. NRT observations, email notifications and NetCDF Alert data Products, called NCAP) have shown shows the significant interest in using selective detection of natural airborne hazards from polar orbiting satellite. The combination of several sensors inside a single global system demonstrates the advantage of using a triggered approach to obtain selective detection from observations, which cannot initially discriminate the different aerosol types. Satellite products from hyperspectral UV and IR sensors (e.g. TROPOMI, IASI) and broadband geostationary imager (SEVIRI), and retrievals from ground-based networks (e.g. EARLINET, E-PROFILE and the regional network from volcanic observatories), are combined by our system to create tailored alert products (e.g. selective ash detection, SO2 column and plume height, dust cloud and smoke from wildfires). A total of 23 different alert products are implemented, using 1 geostationary and 12 polar orbiting satellite platforms, 3 external existing service, 2 EU and 2 regional ground-based networks. This allows the identification and the traceability of extreme events. EUNADICS EWS has also shown the interest to proceed a future relay of radiological data (gamma dose rate and radionuclides concentrations in ground-level air) in case of nuclear accident, highlighting the capability of operating early warnings with the use of homogenised dataset. For the four types of airborne hazard, EUNADICS EWS has demonstrated its capability to provide NRT alert data products to trigger data assimilation and dispersion modelling providing forecasts, and inverse modelling for source term estimate. All our alert data products (NCAP files) are not publicly disseminated. Access to our alert products is currently restricted to key users (i.e. Volcanic Ash Advisory Centres, National Meteorological Services, World Meteorological Organization, governments, volcanic observatories and research collaborators), as these are considered pre-decisional products. On the other hand, thanks to the SACS/EUNADICS web interface (https://sacs.aeronomie.be), the main part of the satellite observations used by EUNADICS EWS, are shown in NRT, with public email notification of volcanic emission and delivery of tailored images and NCAP files. All the ATM stakeholders (e.g. VAACs, NMSs, WMOs, Airlines and Pilots) can access and benefit of these alert products through this free channel.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(6028 KB)
-
Supplement
(976 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6028 KB) -
Supplement
(976 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Hugues Brenot et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-105', Mariana Adam, 05 May 2021
I have several observations and it would be very nice if there will be some clarifications.
Regarding Table 5, it will be very useful to have the numerical values of the thresholds given. Why don't you use particles extinction and backscatter coefficients from lidars (as mentioned in Table 3)? Moreover, the example from Fig. 13 uses particle backscatter coefficient. What do you mean by 'Range of att. backscatter' in Table 5? To me, what is of interest is the pollution layer geometry (layer altitude and depth).
Please mention the timeliness for EWS, i.e., when the warning will be issued after the event (hours).
Does the example given in Fig. 14 represent a hazard? I see it just as an illustration of the Eprofile capability. Please mention if you have any criteria for attenuated backscatter from which you can set a warning.
I am a bit confused about Fig. 13. You mention that the alert uses mass concentration based on backscatter coefficients thresholds. According to Papagiannopoulos et al. (2020), the thresholds are for particle backscatter coefficients, based on given mass concentrations (eq. 9). Please correct and cite the reference. Please comment on uncertainty.
Please comment on plumes heights. So far, you give examples for ash top height and SO2 plume height estimated from satellites (Figs. 3 and 5). How this information corroborates with the total SO2 concentration (threshold of mass loading of 5 kt, page 38). On the other hand, why no lidar or ALC system is used to determine the plumes geometry?
Why the lidars are not used for smoke identification? There are many papers on aerosol type, mostly based on lidar ratio and extinction Angstrom exponent. Again, why is just volume depolarization ratio used? Moreover, why not particle linear depolarization ratio?- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Hugues Brenot, 12 Sep 2021
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-105', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Jul 2021
General comments
This study describes European Natural Airborne Disaster Information and Coordination System for Aviation (EUNADICS-AV) Early Warning System (EWS). The EUNADICS EWS greatly extends the existing Support to Aviation Control System (SACS) automatic alert system for airborne volcanic sulfur dioxide SO2 and ash to include other airborne hazards (dust, smoke and radionuclide clouds) with creation of multiple new alert products (email and web pages with NRT maps, data files) and convenient formats (NetCDF). These new data are provided by EUNADICS partners and external data sources. The EUNADICS system further combines satellite data with the European ground-based networks (lidar and passive) and regional measurements from volcanic observatories in Iceland and Sicily.
EUNADICS serves European users, primarily Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAACs) in London and Toulouse that have operational responsibility for volcanic ash advisories and forecasts. New message formats (NetCDF alert data products) will facilitate using the alerts to initialize plume dispersion models.
There is room for English and punctuation improvements, which would make paper easier to read. Many sentences need re-wording and/or clarification. Specific suggestions are mentioned below.
I found the paper informative and suitable for publication after language and syntax improvements.
Specific comments
The aviation hazards satellite data sources are comprehensive, except for direct readout data for Iceland and Europe from Satellite Measurements from Polar Orbit (SAMPO) service (https://sampo.fmi.fi/products). Using SAMPO data would help reducing alert latency time and geographical coverage of the EUNADICS system.
Abbreviations should be explained when first used.
Consider removing abbreviation from the title.
Technical corrections
Abstract is not clear to a general reader, not familiar with the EUNAUDICS project. I suggest explanation of the abbreviation “EUNADICS” in the abstract.
45 ATM – explain abbreviation
47 have shown significant
48 satellite[s]
51 e.g.[,]
55 service[s]
57 to proceed – consider changing this verb
58 … highlighting the capability of operating early warnings … - consider re-wording
75 implication in meteorological processing… – clarify
80 particles
81 satellite [data]
84 It makes it possible as it can to provide information
94 https://meteoalarm.org
149 The results - objectives?
153 Copernicus Atmosphere [Monitoring] Service (CAMS)
165-166 … specialization [in] atmospheric transport modelling
Figure 1: SAMPO service
186 boards
195 i.e.,
207 were
217 possibility -> discussion with ?
218 Tables 1 and 2 -> 2 and 3?
227 overpass
243 particulate matter (PM)
243 volcanic ash total column [number or mass density]
245 averaging kernel250 We reviewed …
252 products
253 section 2.2?
276, 277 .. Observatory which operates …
281 e.g.,
296 e.g.,
308 at NOAA
312 MWOs – explain abbreviation
316 aim at -> with the goal of supporting …
317 satellites
345 use ground observations
404 when
405 up to the lower stratosphere – why not in the middle and upper stratosphere?
405 Eight? satellites sensors …
407 Yang et al., [2007] - OMI product has been replaced with conceptually new OMI SO2 product: Li et al., New-generation NASA Aura Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) volcanic SO2 dataset: Algorithm description, initial results, and continuation with the Suomi-NPP Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 445-458, doi:10.5194/amt-10-445-2017, 2017.
415 between 3 and 21 km, - why is the upper limit 21km?
421 e.g.,
423 expressed in Kelvin degree (K)
432 missing reference: Virtanen et al., (2014)
438 to define
443 illustrates
447 a fast? ash detection
448 i.e.,
469 presented
470 is based
487 is obtained ?
503 triggered
Figure 13, left map: should the white box show station Finokalia (Crete), shown on the right?
549 ash advections have not been observed
555 networks
560, 561,566: e.g.,
608 ZAMG and STUK – explain abbreviations
609 ZAMG
610 remove “have been designed”
613 delete “proceeding”. … is implemented?
643 new alert products
644 creates
667-670 repeat of 645-650
683 quantity product – just use product
715 nuclear central - plant?
749 remove “thanks to”
751 explain TRL
753 i.e.,
757 allows consultation -> visualization?
763 burst -> cloud
801 remove “same”
814 consider
839 is operated -> is implemented ?
855 NCAP fiel -> file?
857 details
P36 868 possible
870 link not found
873 MWOs – explain
890-891 was designed with the goal of …
891 passed
895 obtained -> has been demonstrated?
899 satellites
906 has developed
907 notifications
908 include
913 better spatial resolution – better than what?
916 Only one aspect
919 interest -> usefulness?
920 of using EUNADICS system in
921 activity about -> utility for …
925,930 in the framework of …
928 proceeding -> implementing
958 the alert
971 details
972 provided
991 e.g.,
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Hugues Brenot, 12 Sep 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-105', Tatjana Bolic, 02 Aug 2021
The paper describes the results of the EUNADICS AV project, which developed different natural hazards observation and notification products, with the goal to support aviation in the cases of airborne natural hazards. My expertise is in aviation, so I cannot judge the background scientific quality, even though it seems impressive to me - the number of different tools, observations and notifications.
I do have several comments, that would require minor text revisions:
- In the abstract the authors say "All the ATM stakeholders (e.g. pilots, airlines and passengers) can access and benefit of these alert products through this free channel." I find this a bit strong as a statement. Any memeber of public can access these products, that is true, but it is unclear how they can benefit, as there is no explanation of the meaning of any of the products - one would need to be a scientist to understand what they are looking at. This is true even for graphical products where different colors are set for different concentrations (or similar), but there is no explanation what it means for layman - even for aviation stakeholder - what is red zone? Can I fly through it or not? If not, how far should I keep? All this to say that these products have greaat value for aviation, but they are still missing an important part which is the "translation" of its meaning for aviation stakeholders that are not meterologists or atmoshperic scientist (if this is a good term at all).
- In section 5 the authors say "EUNADICS is a SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research; https://www.sesarju.eu) enabling project with regard to the definitions provided in the SESAR 2020 Programme Execution Framework, delivering SESAR Technological Solutions." I would strongy suggest to rephrase this sentence, as the project itslef is not even connected to SESAR, and the products developed are not "enabling" in the sense that is used in SESAR (enabling in SESAR means a technology that is a necessary building block of an ATM infrastructure - in a sense that without it, there is no new ATM infrastructure. I would suggest to rephrase into "supporting" or similar wording.
- Next, the authors say:"EUNADICS pass maturity phase V2 with regard to the 7-phase concept as introduced by the European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (E-OCVM, 2010)..." E-OCVM presents guidance for V1-V3 of the 8 phases of ATM products life-cycle. However, I don't think that EUNADICS can claim V2 maturity level according to EOCVM, as human factors, safety, business, environmental and standards cases were not performed for any of the products. The point of the cases is to assess the impact of the soluton on a wide set of matters in the ATM. These cases are requirements that need to be passed, in order for a solution/product to mature from V1 to V2 or from V2 to V3. The EUNADICS project could easily claim TRLs 2,3 or even 4, of the H2020 technology levels, but not V2 of EOCVM. mainly because the EOCVM requires the assessment of how the products can be implemented in ATM and what would the impact be, and that was not done (the various cases) in the project, nor was that the point of the project).
- In line 925, what do you mean by "environment). EUNADICS EWS passes with success the performance verification."?
- Finally, a suggestion to authors regarding the TRL levels of their products, in aviation setting. A product can be deemed operational in aviation if intended end-users can access the information, understand it and make decisions based on the understood information. If the presented information is not understandable by the end-user (e.g. pilot, air traffic controller), the product will not be used, even if it is completely accurate, and reliable. That is the reason for having various cases in the EOCVM methodology - to make new technology not only work, but to be understood. Some of the next steps, in my opinion should be identification of the end-users, and tailoring of the product for their use. If the end-users are only national meteorological providers, VAACs and similar, then the TRL of EUNADICS products is very high, and probably close to operational. But, if the products should be shared with other, non-scientific types of end-users, there is still a lot of work to reach high TRL levels, and that work is mainly on making the information understandable to these users.
- Please review the paper for English proofing. It is overall of good quality, but there are typos and some non-English phrases that make reading slightly harder.
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Hugues Brenot, 12 Sep 2021
-
AC4: 'Comment on nhess-2021-105', Hugues Brenot, 12 Sep 2021
Good afternoon dear Editor,
After the answer to RC1, RC2, and CC1 that really to improve the masnuscript, I realise I should add 2 new authors from INGV in this paper (Giuseppe Salerno, Simona Scollo). These new authors contribute to this manuscript and specially help to anwer to CC1.
With respect to RC1, RC2, and CC1, the manuscript has been modifed (improvements) and the names and affiliations of the 2 new co-authors added. I hope this is OK for you.
Best regards,
Hugues Brenot
Peer review completion
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-105', Mariana Adam, 05 May 2021
I have several observations and it would be very nice if there will be some clarifications.
Regarding Table 5, it will be very useful to have the numerical values of the thresholds given. Why don't you use particles extinction and backscatter coefficients from lidars (as mentioned in Table 3)? Moreover, the example from Fig. 13 uses particle backscatter coefficient. What do you mean by 'Range of att. backscatter' in Table 5? To me, what is of interest is the pollution layer geometry (layer altitude and depth).
Please mention the timeliness for EWS, i.e., when the warning will be issued after the event (hours).
Does the example given in Fig. 14 represent a hazard? I see it just as an illustration of the Eprofile capability. Please mention if you have any criteria for attenuated backscatter from which you can set a warning.
I am a bit confused about Fig. 13. You mention that the alert uses mass concentration based on backscatter coefficients thresholds. According to Papagiannopoulos et al. (2020), the thresholds are for particle backscatter coefficients, based on given mass concentrations (eq. 9). Please correct and cite the reference. Please comment on uncertainty.
Please comment on plumes heights. So far, you give examples for ash top height and SO2 plume height estimated from satellites (Figs. 3 and 5). How this information corroborates with the total SO2 concentration (threshold of mass loading of 5 kt, page 38). On the other hand, why no lidar or ALC system is used to determine the plumes geometry?
Why the lidars are not used for smoke identification? There are many papers on aerosol type, mostly based on lidar ratio and extinction Angstrom exponent. Again, why is just volume depolarization ratio used? Moreover, why not particle linear depolarization ratio?- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Hugues Brenot, 12 Sep 2021
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-105', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Jul 2021
General comments
This study describes European Natural Airborne Disaster Information and Coordination System for Aviation (EUNADICS-AV) Early Warning System (EWS). The EUNADICS EWS greatly extends the existing Support to Aviation Control System (SACS) automatic alert system for airborne volcanic sulfur dioxide SO2 and ash to include other airborne hazards (dust, smoke and radionuclide clouds) with creation of multiple new alert products (email and web pages with NRT maps, data files) and convenient formats (NetCDF). These new data are provided by EUNADICS partners and external data sources. The EUNADICS system further combines satellite data with the European ground-based networks (lidar and passive) and regional measurements from volcanic observatories in Iceland and Sicily.
EUNADICS serves European users, primarily Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAACs) in London and Toulouse that have operational responsibility for volcanic ash advisories and forecasts. New message formats (NetCDF alert data products) will facilitate using the alerts to initialize plume dispersion models.
There is room for English and punctuation improvements, which would make paper easier to read. Many sentences need re-wording and/or clarification. Specific suggestions are mentioned below.
I found the paper informative and suitable for publication after language and syntax improvements.
Specific comments
The aviation hazards satellite data sources are comprehensive, except for direct readout data for Iceland and Europe from Satellite Measurements from Polar Orbit (SAMPO) service (https://sampo.fmi.fi/products). Using SAMPO data would help reducing alert latency time and geographical coverage of the EUNADICS system.
Abbreviations should be explained when first used.
Consider removing abbreviation from the title.
Technical corrections
Abstract is not clear to a general reader, not familiar with the EUNAUDICS project. I suggest explanation of the abbreviation “EUNADICS” in the abstract.
45 ATM – explain abbreviation
47 have shown significant
48 satellite[s]
51 e.g.[,]
55 service[s]
57 to proceed – consider changing this verb
58 … highlighting the capability of operating early warnings … - consider re-wording
75 implication in meteorological processing… – clarify
80 particles
81 satellite [data]
84 It makes it possible as it can to provide information
94 https://meteoalarm.org
149 The results - objectives?
153 Copernicus Atmosphere [Monitoring] Service (CAMS)
165-166 … specialization [in] atmospheric transport modelling
Figure 1: SAMPO service
186 boards
195 i.e.,
207 were
217 possibility -> discussion with ?
218 Tables 1 and 2 -> 2 and 3?
227 overpass
243 particulate matter (PM)
243 volcanic ash total column [number or mass density]
245 averaging kernel250 We reviewed …
252 products
253 section 2.2?
276, 277 .. Observatory which operates …
281 e.g.,
296 e.g.,
308 at NOAA
312 MWOs – explain abbreviation
316 aim at -> with the goal of supporting …
317 satellites
345 use ground observations
404 when
405 up to the lower stratosphere – why not in the middle and upper stratosphere?
405 Eight? satellites sensors …
407 Yang et al., [2007] - OMI product has been replaced with conceptually new OMI SO2 product: Li et al., New-generation NASA Aura Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) volcanic SO2 dataset: Algorithm description, initial results, and continuation with the Suomi-NPP Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS), Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 445-458, doi:10.5194/amt-10-445-2017, 2017.
415 between 3 and 21 km, - why is the upper limit 21km?
421 e.g.,
423 expressed in Kelvin degree (K)
432 missing reference: Virtanen et al., (2014)
438 to define
443 illustrates
447 a fast? ash detection
448 i.e.,
469 presented
470 is based
487 is obtained ?
503 triggered
Figure 13, left map: should the white box show station Finokalia (Crete), shown on the right?
549 ash advections have not been observed
555 networks
560, 561,566: e.g.,
608 ZAMG and STUK – explain abbreviations
609 ZAMG
610 remove “have been designed”
613 delete “proceeding”. … is implemented?
643 new alert products
644 creates
667-670 repeat of 645-650
683 quantity product – just use product
715 nuclear central - plant?
749 remove “thanks to”
751 explain TRL
753 i.e.,
757 allows consultation -> visualization?
763 burst -> cloud
801 remove “same”
814 consider
839 is operated -> is implemented ?
855 NCAP fiel -> file?
857 details
P36 868 possible
870 link not found
873 MWOs – explain
890-891 was designed with the goal of …
891 passed
895 obtained -> has been demonstrated?
899 satellites
906 has developed
907 notifications
908 include
913 better spatial resolution – better than what?
916 Only one aspect
919 interest -> usefulness?
920 of using EUNADICS system in
921 activity about -> utility for …
925,930 in the framework of …
928 proceeding -> implementing
958 the alert
971 details
972 provided
991 e.g.,
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Hugues Brenot, 12 Sep 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-105', Tatjana Bolic, 02 Aug 2021
The paper describes the results of the EUNADICS AV project, which developed different natural hazards observation and notification products, with the goal to support aviation in the cases of airborne natural hazards. My expertise is in aviation, so I cannot judge the background scientific quality, even though it seems impressive to me - the number of different tools, observations and notifications.
I do have several comments, that would require minor text revisions:
- In the abstract the authors say "All the ATM stakeholders (e.g. pilots, airlines and passengers) can access and benefit of these alert products through this free channel." I find this a bit strong as a statement. Any memeber of public can access these products, that is true, but it is unclear how they can benefit, as there is no explanation of the meaning of any of the products - one would need to be a scientist to understand what they are looking at. This is true even for graphical products where different colors are set for different concentrations (or similar), but there is no explanation what it means for layman - even for aviation stakeholder - what is red zone? Can I fly through it or not? If not, how far should I keep? All this to say that these products have greaat value for aviation, but they are still missing an important part which is the "translation" of its meaning for aviation stakeholders that are not meterologists or atmoshperic scientist (if this is a good term at all).
- In section 5 the authors say "EUNADICS is a SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research; https://www.sesarju.eu) enabling project with regard to the definitions provided in the SESAR 2020 Programme Execution Framework, delivering SESAR Technological Solutions." I would strongy suggest to rephrase this sentence, as the project itslef is not even connected to SESAR, and the products developed are not "enabling" in the sense that is used in SESAR (enabling in SESAR means a technology that is a necessary building block of an ATM infrastructure - in a sense that without it, there is no new ATM infrastructure. I would suggest to rephrase into "supporting" or similar wording.
- Next, the authors say:"EUNADICS pass maturity phase V2 with regard to the 7-phase concept as introduced by the European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (E-OCVM, 2010)..." E-OCVM presents guidance for V1-V3 of the 8 phases of ATM products life-cycle. However, I don't think that EUNADICS can claim V2 maturity level according to EOCVM, as human factors, safety, business, environmental and standards cases were not performed for any of the products. The point of the cases is to assess the impact of the soluton on a wide set of matters in the ATM. These cases are requirements that need to be passed, in order for a solution/product to mature from V1 to V2 or from V2 to V3. The EUNADICS project could easily claim TRLs 2,3 or even 4, of the H2020 technology levels, but not V2 of EOCVM. mainly because the EOCVM requires the assessment of how the products can be implemented in ATM and what would the impact be, and that was not done (the various cases) in the project, nor was that the point of the project).
- In line 925, what do you mean by "environment). EUNADICS EWS passes with success the performance verification."?
- Finally, a suggestion to authors regarding the TRL levels of their products, in aviation setting. A product can be deemed operational in aviation if intended end-users can access the information, understand it and make decisions based on the understood information. If the presented information is not understandable by the end-user (e.g. pilot, air traffic controller), the product will not be used, even if it is completely accurate, and reliable. That is the reason for having various cases in the EOCVM methodology - to make new technology not only work, but to be understood. Some of the next steps, in my opinion should be identification of the end-users, and tailoring of the product for their use. If the end-users are only national meteorological providers, VAACs and similar, then the TRL of EUNADICS products is very high, and probably close to operational. But, if the products should be shared with other, non-scientific types of end-users, there is still a lot of work to reach high TRL levels, and that work is mainly on making the information understandable to these users.
- Please review the paper for English proofing. It is overall of good quality, but there are typos and some non-English phrases that make reading slightly harder.
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Hugues Brenot, 12 Sep 2021
-
AC4: 'Comment on nhess-2021-105', Hugues Brenot, 12 Sep 2021
Good afternoon dear Editor,
After the answer to RC1, RC2, and CC1 that really to improve the masnuscript, I realise I should add 2 new authors from INGV in this paper (Giuseppe Salerno, Simona Scollo). These new authors contribute to this manuscript and specially help to anwer to CC1.
With respect to RC1, RC2, and CC1, the manuscript has been modifed (improvements) and the names and affiliations of the 2 new co-authors added. I hope this is OK for you.
Best regards,
Hugues Brenot
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Hugues Brenot et al.
Hugues Brenot et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 550 | 291 | 30 | 871 | 34 | 8 | 5 |
- HTML: 550
- PDF: 291
- XML: 30
- Total: 871
- Supplement: 34
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6028 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(976 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote