1996
DOI: 10.1175/1520-0434(1996)011<0372:tquopi>2.0.co;2 View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
|

Abstract: An evaluation of the utility of pilot reports (PIREPs) of weather for aviation forecasting product development is presented. Although PIREPs were never intended for quantitative use, this limitation has not prevented developers of improved aviation weather guidance products (such as turbulence or icing forecasting schemes) from using these data. In this paper, an analysis of turbulence reports over the continental United States and Alaska is employed to show that the reports contained within the PIREPs databas… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance
Select...
1
1
1
1
0
31
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Note that, by construction, the probability of light-or-greater turbulence is 3.0% and the probability of moderate-or-greater turbulence is 0.4%. The probabilities for each turbulence strength category agree reasonably well with the relative frequencies at which the categories appear in automated in-flight measurements (Williams, 2014) and in PIREPs in the United States (Schwartz, 1996) and South Korea (Kim and Chun, 2011). Exact quantitative agreement cannot be expected, because of inconsistent PIREP reporting practices and because automated measurements and PIREPs contain a substantial avoidance bias, which is caused by pilots attempting to evade the strongest turbulence (Sharman et al, 2014).…”
Section: 2)mentioning
Create an account to read the remaining citation statements from this report. You will also get access to:
  • Search over 1.2b+ citation statments to see what is being said about any topic in the research literature
  • Advanced Search to find publications that support or contrast your research
  • Citation reports and visualizations to easily see what publications are saying about each other
  • Browser extension to see Smart Citations wherever you read research
  • Dashboards to evaluate and keep track of groups of publications
  • Alerts to stay on top of citations as they happen
  • Automated reference checks to make sure you are citing reliable research in your manuscripts
  • 7 day free preview of our premium features.

Trusted by researchers and organizations around the world

Over 130,000 students researchers, and industry experts at use scite

See what students are saying

rupbmjkragerfmgwileyiopcupepmcmbcthiemesagefrontiersapsiucrarxivemeralduhksmucshluniversity-of-gavle
“…Note that, by construction, the probability of light-or-greater turbulence is 3.0% and the probability of moderate-or-greater turbulence is 0.4%. The probabilities for each turbulence strength category agree reasonably well with the relative frequencies at which the categories appear in automated in-flight measurements (Williams, 2014) and in PIREPs in the United States (Schwartz, 1996) and South Korea (Kim and Chun, 2011). Exact quantitative agreement cannot be expected, because of inconsistent PIREP reporting practices and because automated measurements and PIREPs contain a substantial avoidance bias, which is caused by pilots attempting to evade the strongest turbulence (Sharman et al, 2014).…”
Section: 2)mentioning
“…Here, maxima in PIREP relative frequency exist over the Florida peninsula, over eastern Texas, and along the Gulf Coast, which are all regions known for frequent convective activity. PIREPs are useful for deriving turbulence climatologies and are essential for routine tactical avoidance, but they are not research quality observations (e.g., Schwartz 1996;Sharman et al 2006;Wolff and Sharman 2008). Uncertainties in PIREP location (median error ~ 50 km) makes them unacceptable for NCT studies, because it is almost impossible to unambiguously determine PIREP locations relative to cloud boundaries.…”
Section: Gravity Wavesmentioning
“…Some previous studies resolved this issue using PIREPs (Kim and Chun 2011;Schwartz 1996) to identify regions of turbulence based on a semi-quantitative scale from light to extreme, but these can be unreliable (Kane et al 1998). PIREPs are subjective, in the sense that a more experienced pilot may catagorise an event as moderate, but an inexperienced pilot may record it as severe.…”
Section: Forecast Verificationmentioning