WP final report


Reporting period: 03/07/2017 – 30/06/2019

1. INFORMATION ON THE ACTION

Grant Agreement Nº INEA/CEF/TRAN/M2016/1352262
Action number 2016-EU-TMC-0075-S
Action title eGAFOR
Author of the report
Name Stjepko Jančijev
Position Project Manager, WP2 leader
Entity CCL
Telephone Nº + 385 1 6259 360; mob +385 99 624 95 77
E-mail stjepko.jancijev@crocontrol.hr

2. INFORMATION ON THE PROGRESS OF THE ACTION

Work package 2 – WP2: Definition of the scope of the eGAFOR
The aim of this Activity was to harmonise the new eGAFOR forecast elements, criteria, the space-time scales and how this information will be presented to the end users. The PT members have organised meetings with experts within their organisations as well as end users in order to collect the relevant information and reach conclusions on individual activities within this Work Package. Based on all the gathered data the WP2 team have defined the new eGAFOR product and technical requirements for the system.

Deliverables:
D2.1 Report on basic terms
D2.2 Report on defined MET elements which will be forecasted in eGAFOR
D2.3 Report on defined content and presentation of eGAFOR
D2.4 Report on defined forecasting criteria for individual MET elements
D2.5 Report on the defined route network
D2.6 Report on the defined eGAFOR issuing protocols
D2.7 Report on defined technical requirements for a web interface and eGAFOR output user display

Meetings:
WebEx meeting, 13/12/2017
F2F meeting, Budapest, 14/02/2018
F2F meeting, Belgrade, 25/04/2018
F2F meeting, Bratislava, 11/09/2018
WebEx meeting, 21/09/2018
WebEx meeting, 23/10/2018
F2F meeting, Ljubljana, 30/10/2018
F2F meeting, Sarajevo, 11/12/2018
WebEx meeting, 20/12/2018
F2F meeting, Zagreb, 06/03/2019
F2F meeting, Bucharest, 03/04/2019
F2F meeting, Budapest, 13-14/05/2019

Milestones:
M2.1 End of defining basic terms in eGAFOR
M2.2 Definition of MET elements in eGAFOR
M2.3 Definition of content and presentation of eGAFOR
M2.4 Definition of forecasting criteria in eGAFOR
M2.5 Definition of route network
M2.6 Definition of eGAFOR issuing protocols
M2.7 Definition of technical requirements

Date of reaching milestone:
M2.1 15/06/2018
M2.2 28/12/2018
M2.3 28/12/2018
M2.4 28/12/2018
M2.5 31/03/2019
M2.6 31/03/2019
M2.7 30/06/2019

Short overview of the progress:
User meetings at national level and user surveys
All the partners (except IBL) held user meetings at national level and conducted surveys in order to obtain user needs and expectations. CCL processed the data and presented the analysis of consolidated results at the Budapest meeting.
Definition of common term “Route”
At the Budapest meeting CCL proposed the definition of the term. After all the METSP partners conducted in-firm consultations, the term was approved by all the partners. The Report on defined basic terms was drafted and approved by all partners on 15/06/2019.
Defining the route network
Only ARSO and CCL had a GAFOR route network before the Project. In order to create the eGAFOR route network, cross-border points between countries had to be defined. All the METSP partners have drafted the route network inside their borders, cross-border points and routes are defined between all the partner countries. Due to complexity of the issue and number of stakeholders involved, defining the route network took a year to complete. At the end, Report on the defined route network was drafted and approved by all partners on 31/03/2019.
Defining MET elements which will be forecasted in eGAFOR
Based on user surveys and impact analysis, and expert discussion on number of meetings, the partners agreed that the following meteorological phenomena (MET elements) will be forecasted in eGAFOR:

  1. Low BKN/OVC cloudiness (LC)
  2. Visibility (VIS)
  3. Turbulence (TURB)
  4. Cumulonimbus clouds (CB)
  5. Freezing precipitation (FZPP)

The Report on defined MET elements which will be forecasted in eGAFOR was drafted and approved by all partners on 28/12/2018. Original deadline for this milestone was 31/10/2018, but since the content of this report is closely connected to other two reports (M2.3, M2.4), it was decided to release all three of them together.
Defining the content and presentation of eGAFOR
The partners have decided that eGAFOR will not be printable material, but an interactive webpage. Users shall access eGAFOR product, which will be a graphical 6 hours forecast divided into three 2-hours intervals, via the www.egafor.eu website. For each time interval, it will present user-friendly impact forecast on routes based on meteorological forecast.
The Report on defined content and presentation of eGAFOR was drafted and approved by all partners on 28/12/2018.
Defining the forecasting criteria for individual MET elements
On series of meetings partners have agreed upon meteorological thresholds, severity and probability classes for each forecasted MET phenomena in eGAFOR. The Report on defined forecasting criteria for individual MET elements was drafted and approved by all partners on 28/12/2018. However, an error was spotted in the Report, so corrected version was published on 26/06/2019.
Defining the eGAFOR issuing protocols
Time properties of eGAFOR issuing protocol were defined based on input from METSP partners about their work schedules and operational needs on the one hand, and content of eGAFOR on the other hand. General directions on collaborative forecasting were defined. The Report on the
Defined eGAFOR Issuing Protocols was drafted and approved by all partners on 31/03/2019.
New rules and/or recommended practices of collaborative forecasting which will established during the training (WP4), will be added to the Report.
Defining the technical requirements
Based on all reports and expert discussions on Bucharest, Zagreb and Budapest meeting, two papers were made, eGAFOR system requirements (a list of requirements) and “The eGAFOR story” (process of creating collaborative eGAFOR forecast in story-telling fashion).
The Report on defined technical requirements for a web interface and eGAFOR output user display was drafted and approved by all partners on 26/06/2019.

Conclusion
All the partners actively participated in all activities and tasks scheduled in the Project. There were no issues in implementing Activity 2 and all the Deliverables were produced according the plan. Only a small deviation from the plan was the two-months prolongation of M2.2.