Results from the second BLIPMAP
User Survey, taken over a 12 day period during Feb-Mar 2003, are given below
as red overlay on the original survey
form or as a link for extracted comments. The voting percentage
or average was computed only for those respondents who answered that
question, which is indicated in brackets [#] (note that questions allowing multiple
responses can total to more than 100%!).
The total number of
participants was 524. This is about 30% of the number of
(non-bounced) emails sent to users informing them of the survey which
is an excellent rate of participation, especially considering the
length of the survey.
A listing of the comments
(from those who opted to allow their comments to be viewed) is
provided in several links. Several of the comments are location
specific, so the location from which each came is indicated - and if
the pilot specified that their survey could be made public their name
is also given. I have also edited some comments to remove
personal messages or names.
I have read all the
comments and was definitely interested in them, but there were three
times as many surveys returned as last year so I did get a bit bleary
eyed doing so and expect I will want to look at them again when I have
more time. (I think there should be a prize for anyone else who
reads all the comments!)
My sincere thanks to all those who took time to participate - those
who allowed their names to be made public are listed in the public key.
About You
Name:
Airport:
If registered, your Registration Userid OR Email: (if unknown, just type "unknown"):
If you will permit an email to obtain additional feedback, enter your email address:
Survey privacy: This survey can be seen by:
54% [511] anyone
41% [511] just Dr.Jack, but my comments can be extracted and posted anonymously
5% [511] just Dr.Jack, and my comments can NOT be extracted and posted anonymously
What you fly: (multiple choice possible)
83% [516] Sailplane
17% [516] HangGlider
5% [516] ParaGlider
28% [516] Power Plane
1% [516] No flying done at present time
Region(s) in which you have used BLIPMAP: (multiple choice possible)
26% [514] NorthEast
18% [514] SouthEast
15% [514] NorthCentral
6% [514] SouthCentral
5% [514] GreatPlains
12% [514] OK/TX
13% [514] NorthWest
24% [514] SouthWest
31% [514] CA/NV
Type(s) of flying: (multiple choice possible)
82% [511] Local
87% [511] CrossCountry
28% [511] Contest
17% [511] Record
Not surprisingly, BLIPMAP users are very cross-country oriented
National aviation associations(s) you belong to: (multiple choice possible)
77% [506] SSA
19% [506] USHGA
42% [506] AOPA
19% [506] EAA
15% [506] Any other national association
BLIPMAP users seem very organization minded. Of those who listed themselves as "sailplane" pilots 91%
were SSA members and of those who listed themselves as either a hangglider or paraglider pilot 90% were USHGA members.
I find the former particularly interesting in light of recent statement by
John Roake, Chairman of the International Gliding Commission's Membership Committee, that
based on newly revised FAA statistics the SSA represents less than 50% of sailplane pilots in the USA.
That is certainly not true of BLIPMAP users who answered the survey, and may well not be true of active
glider pilots as a group.
Enter any comment needed to clarify the above: (optional)
(for overall comments on BLIPMAPs, please use the comment box at the end of the form!)
Link to comments
About your BLIPMAP use
How many days (approx.) did you fly in 2003:
45 days ±38.3 [min-max=0-320] [506]
After you knew about BLIPMAPs, on what percentage of your flights did you obtain a BLIPMAP-based forecast prior to the flight:
75 % ±28.1 [min-max=0-100] [506]
During the soaring season, how many times did you look at the BLIPMAP forecasts during an average week:
5.5 times ±10.4 [min-max=0-150] [502]
How many total days have you flown based on a BLIPMAP forecast when you otherwise would not have flown:
6.3 days ±9.1 [min-max=0-60] [446]
How many times have you canceled a planned soaring day because BLIPMAPs predicted a poor day:
6.3 times ±9.4 [min-max=0-100] [450]
If you work, on how many "work days" have you taken time off or rescheduled work so that you could fly based on a BLIPMAP forecast:
3.0 days ±4.8 [min-max=0-30] [370]
What (guessimated) percentage of active pilots at your soaring site now use BLIPMAP forecasts:
43 % ±27.9 [min-max=0-100] [453]
Have you ever used a BLIPMAP forecast secondhand, i.e. someone else actually looked at the BLIPMAP and gave you a forecast based on it
70% [495] Yes
30% [495] No
If you have used BLIPMAPs for task planning and/or choice of flight direction, how valuable has that been for those purposes
20% [495] Not used for task planning
43% [495] Extremely useful
37% [495] Useful
1% [495] Not Useful
When using BLIPMAP forecasts, do you look at
44% [492] Only forecasts for a single (18/21Z) time
57% [492] Forecasts for multiple times of the day
Enter any comment which clarifies your BLIPMAP use: (optional)
(for overall comments on BLIPMAPs, please use the comment box at the end of the form!)
Link to comments
About BLIPMAP Usefulness
Overall, how would you rate the usefulness of BLIPMAPs for planning
your flight weatherwise:
62% [498] Extremely useful
36% [498] Generally Useful
2% [498] Marginally Useful
0% [498] Not Useful
For as many of the following parameters in which you have an interest, please give your impression of their usefulness and accuracy
| Parameter | Useage |
Accuracy (if used) |
Average Error (if used) |
Comments (optional) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thermal Updraft Velocity (W*) |
0% [471] NOT Understood so NOT Used 1% [471] Understood but NOT Used 98% [471] Understood and Used |
1% [447] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 11% [447] Marginally accurate 88% [447] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
12% [379] Predictions too HIGH on Average 76% [379] Predictions equally high and low 12% [379] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
| Height of BL Top |
4% [461] NOT Understood so NOT Used 15% [461] Understood but NOT Used 81% [461] Understood and Used |
1% [371] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 17% [371] Marginally accurate 83% [371] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
8% [315] Predictions too HIGH on Average 80% [315] Predictions equally high and low 13% [315] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
|
Height of Critical Updraft Strength (Hcrit) |
9% [451] NOT Understood so NOT Used 19% [451] Understood but NOT Used 73% [451] Understood and Used |
2% [329] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 18% [329] Marginally accurate 80% [329] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
6% [281] Predictions too HIGH on Average 74% [281] Predictions equally high and low 20% [281] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
| Thermal Height Variability |
22% [433] NOT Understood so NOT Used 49% [433] Understood but NOT Used 30% [433] Understood and Used |
4% [144] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 42% [144] Marginally accurate 55% [144] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
7% [113] Predictions too HIGH on Average 89% [113] Predictions equally high and low 4% [113] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
|
Buoyancy/Shear Ratio (B/S) |
30% [439] NOT Understood so NOT Used 20% [439] Understood but NOT Used 50% [439] Understood and Used |
1% [209] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 23% [209] Marginally accurate 76% [209] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
4% [155] Predictions too HIGH on Average 88% [155] Predictions equally high and low 8% [155] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
| Wind Speed in BL |
6% [435] NOT Understood so NOT Used 29% [435] Understood but NOT Used 65% [435] Understood and Used |
2% [272] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 18% [272] Marginally accurate 81% [272] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
2% [216] Predictions too HIGH on Average 95% [216] Predictions equally high and low 3% [216] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
| Wind Direction in BL |
5% [435] NOT Understood so NOT Used 28% [435] Understood but NOT Used 67% [435] Understood and Used |
2% [273] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 18% [273] Marginally accurate 81% [273] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
2% [197] Predictions too HIGH on Average 97% [197] Predictions equally high and low 2% [197] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
|
BL Max Up/Down Motion (Convergence) |
42% [418] NOT Understood so NOT Used 36% [418] Understood but NOT Used 22% [418] Understood and Used |
9% [98] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 38% [98] Marginally accurate 53% [98] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
3% [75] Predictions too HIGH on Average 93% [75] Predictions equally high and low 4% [75] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
| Cumulus Potential |
9% [433] NOT Understood so NOT Used 32% [433] Understood but NOT Used 59% [433] Understood and Used |
4% [249] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 30% [249] Marginally accurate 66% [249] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
6% [196] Predictions too HIGH on Average 87% [196] Predictions equally high and low 7% [196] Predictions too LOW on Average |
No comments were received |
|
Cumulus Cloudbase (Surface LCL) |
9% [433] NOT Understood so NOT Used 28% [433] Understood but NOT Used 63% [433] Understood and Used |
2% [248] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 28% [248] Marginally accurate 71% [248] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
8% [196] Predictions too HIGH on Average 81% [196] Predictions equally high and low 12% [196] Predictions too LOW on Average |
No comments were received |
| OverDevelopment Potential |
8% [425] NOT Understood so NOT Used 34% [425] Understood but NOT Used 59% [425] Understood and Used |
2% [223] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 27% [223] Marginally accurate 70% [223] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
4% [165] Predictions too HIGH on Average 92% [165] Predictions equally high and low 5% [165] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
|
OD Cloudbase (BL Condensation Level) |
26% [404] NOT Understood so NOT Used 51% [404] Understood but NOT Used 23% [404] Understood and Used |
1% [90] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 32% [90] Marginally accurate 67% [90] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
3% [70] Predictions too HIGH on Average 91% [70] Predictions equally high and low 6% [70] Predictions too LOW on Average |
No comments were received |
| BL Relative Humidity Max |
36% [391] NOT Understood so NOT Used 55% [391] Understood but NOT Used 10% [391] Understood and Used |
0% [47] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 40% [47] Marginally accurate 60% [47] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
0% [39] Predictions too HIGH on Average 100% [39] Predictions equally high and low 0% [39] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
|
C A P E (Convective Available Potential Energy) |
53% [400] NOT Understood so NOT Used 27% [400] Understood but NOT Used 20% [400] Understood and Used |
0% [80] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 18% [80] Marginally accurate 83% [80] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
2% [65] Predictions too HIGH on Average 95% [65] Predictions equally high and low 3% [65] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
| BL Depth |
41% [396] NOT Understood so NOT Used 41% [396] Understood but NOT Used 18% [396] Understood and Used |
3% [65] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 14% [65] Marginally accurate 83% [65] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
2% [55] Predictions too HIGH on Average 96% [55] Predictions equally high and low 2% [55] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
| Surface Heating |
27% [400] NOT Understood so NOT Used 46% [400] Understood but NOT Used 27% [400] Understood and Used |
3% [105] NOT Accurate enough to be userful 31% [105] Marginally accurate 67% [105] ACCURATE enough to be userful |
4% [79] Predictions too HIGH on Average 91% [79] Predictions equally high and low 5% [79] Predictions too LOW on Average |
Link to comments |
About possible BLIPMAP improvements
Some users are near a domain edge and so must look at two
regional BLIPMAPs to determine the conditions in all directions from
their airport. I am considering extending the domains to
allow greater overlap (of about 1/4 a domain) to help with this problem.
How useful would such a domain extension be to you:
58% [460] Not Useful
30% [460] Useful
12% [460] Extremely useful
How useful would plotting BLIPMAPs in lat/long coordinates (suitable for inputting to programs
like SeeYou) be to you:
37% [466] Not Useful
43% [466] Useful
21% [466] Extremely useful
How useful would addition of a webpage to plot old BLIPMAPs be to you:
43% [457] Not Useful
44% [457] Useful
13% [457] Extremely useful
How useful would addition of a webpage to plot a trace from an IGC file on top of a BLIPMAP image be to you:
40% [431] Not Useful
39% [431] Useful
21% [431] Extremely useful
Would you like to have a specific piece of BLIPMAP information provided on the website ? If so, indicate what you would like to see added in the comment box below.
Link to comments
In addition to the possible improvements cited in the above questions,
I already definitely plan to make the improvement of using constant
BLIPMAP colors for certain parameters (such was W*). If there is a
particularly important BLIPMAP improvement not mentioned above
that you would like to see incorporated (if possible),
describe that in the comment box below.
Link to comments
About the BLIPMAP Future
In 2004 I will be producing BLIPMAPs based on the
ETA model in addition to the present (RUC model) BLIPMAPs. The
main advantages of the new ETA forecasts are: (1) predictions out to
84 hours in advance, (2) resolution nearly double that of the
RUC model to allow improved forecasting of many phenomena,
particularly those dominated by topography, (3) differing
parameterizations which may improve accuracy, such as allowing grid
cells to have partial cloudiness, (4) improved usability
features, such as consistent coloring for some parameters. However, the
traditional RUC BLIPMAPs will not be outdated since they also have some
advantages, such as timeliness and (when available) forecasts at one
hour increments. Which model will be more accurate for a given
parameter or area cannot be judged in advance, so to some extent the
"name of the game" in 2004 will be to determine which model gives the
more accurate prediction for differing parameters and areas.
I have decided that there must be some sort of
income both to keep the operational BLIPMAPs running and to support
development of future improvements, so that soaring forecasts continue
to be improved. To that end I intend to provide the new ETA
BLIPMAP forecasts only to subscribers, at an annual fee presently
projected to be $40-45/year. In my ideal world, there
would be enough subscribers, interested either in the ETA forecasts
themselves or interested in continuing to aid BLIPMAP development, so
that that income would be sufficient to sustain both operation and
development. In that case, the RUC BLIPMAPs would be provided
freely to all, as they are at present, as a "piggyback"
operation. However, if that subscriber base is not large enough
then the RUC BLIPMAPs would also only be available to subscribers
(probably at $25-30/year for those alone, no additional charge to ETA
subscribers). FYI one change for the RUC BLIPMAPs which will
occur in either case is that those forecasts will no longer be
available the evening before - this has nothing to do with the other
changes discussed here but is occurring because BLIPMAP access to the
FSL RUC data was originally established as "research" access befitting
that laboratory's role, but now that they have become "operational"
the data will be obtained from "operational" NCEP sources rather than
from the FSL "research" lab; so starting next year only ETA BLIPMAP
forecasts will be available in the evening.
Based on the above information, which of the following describes you (with strongest support
of BLIPMAPs indicated by the last choice):
11% [420] I would not subscribe, even if obtaining RUC forecasts required subscription
15% [420] I would subscribe only if RUC forecasts also required subscription
47% [420] I would subscribe just to obtain ETA forecasts and help support BLIPMAPs
27% [420] I would subscribe just to obtain the ETA forecasts and if necessary to keep the forecasts operational would even pay more
There has been discussion with the SSA (Soaring Society of America)
regarding their possibly providing the RUC BLIPMAPs as an "SSA
service". Whether this would be a good thing for both BLIPMAPs
and the SSA remains to be decided. One question is whether SSA
would simply sponsor the BLIPMAPs and have them remain freely
available to all or whether SSA membership would be required to view
them. . BLIPMAPs has many hang-glider, paraglider, etc. users who
would not normally be SSA members, so in the latter case to access
BLIPMAPs they would need to either join SSA or else become a "subscribing"
BLIPMAP user (as described in the preceeding question). How do
you feel about this possibility?
6% [448] I'm an SSA member but don't think that SSA supporting BLIPMAPs is a good idea for BLIPMAPs and/or SSA
11% [448] I'm an SSA member and would support this only if RUC BLIPMAPs are freely available to all
22% [448] I'm an SSA member and would support this only if RUC BLIPMAPs are limited to SSA members (and ETA BLIPMAP subscribers)
42% [448] I'm an SSA member and would support this however it is done
2% [448] I'm NOT an SSA member but would join if SSA provides RUC BLIPMAPs only for members
9% [448] I'm NOT an SSA member and would become a BLIPMAP subscriber to access RUC BLIPMAPs if SSA provides them only for members
8% [448] I'm NOT an SSA member and would just do without BLIPMAPs if I must either become a subscriber or join SSA to obtain them
Enter any clarifications of any of the above future plans: (optional)
(for overall comments on BLIPMAPs, please use the comment box at the end of the form!)
Link to comments
Miscellaneous
The time I needed to complete this survey was (approximately):
13 minutes ±8.3 [min-max=5-45] [103]
This question was added after most survey responses had already been received
That survey completion time is:
4% [479] Shorter than I anticipated
84% [479] A reasonable time
12% [479] Longer than I anticipated
1% [479] Much too long
Enter any comments on this survey itself: (optional)
No comments were received
Enter any overall comments on BLIPMAP or comment on anything not addressed elsewhere in the survey: (optional)
Link to comments
[Also, the summary of last year's survey results can be found at
http://www.drjack.info/BLIP/INFO/SURVEY/2002/survey1.results.html}