DARE hydrologic evaluations (1990-1992): assessment of training
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

DARE hydrologic evaluations (1990-1992): assessment of training

Filetype[PDF-56.32 MB]


Select the Download button to view the document
This document is over 5mb in size and cannot be previewed

Details:

  • Personal Author:
  • Description:
    Hydrologic training activities at the Denver Weather Service Forecast Office (WSFO), from spring 1990 through fall 1992, provided an opportunity to develop and assess alternative modes of training. The DARE (Denver AWIPS Risk Reduction and Requirements Evaluation) hydrologic training was developed primarily at the WSFO by the Service Hydrologist and management. This training was conducted using the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) workstation. The hydrologic training program was conducted in two phases over three years. Phase 1 consisted of a day-long seminar in February 1990 that addressed background information on hydrology and provided a demonstration ofthe DARE workstation. In April 1991, another two-hour seminar provided a review of DARE-II hydrologic functions and applications. The Service Hydrologist who conducted this training had received periodic demonstrations ofDARE hydrologic functions during its development. Phase 2 was conducted during 1992 and involved one-on-one training by the Service Hydrologist and followup workstation exercises. The one-on-one sessions covered instructions on how to access the hydrologic data displays and applications, and was followed by on-the-job practice. In spite oftime and resource constraints, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 training programs were shown to increase forecasters hydrologic knowledge. Although the forecasters reported an intermediate capability in the use ofthe DARE workstation hydrologic functions, some ofthem acknowledged inadequate knowledge. They were introduced to a wide spectrum of hydrologic concepts and procedures, and reported that they were able to integrate some ofthis knowledge into their day-to-day activities. The main emphasis ofthe training centered on WSFO operations and responsibilities, and where this was not the case, the forecasters indicated that the information had a limited value. The Phase 1 WSFO training seminar was well received, and the forecasters reported gains in knowledge. They believed that the seminar was a good introduction to the spectrum of hydrologic topics relavent to the WSFO. However, there was some concern that the relevance ofRegional Forecast Center (RFC) procedures was not demonstrated. The Phase 2 Service Hydrologist one-on-one training and the workstation hydrologic exercises were highly rated by the forecasters. In these activities the forecasters gained exposure to the DARE workstation hydrologic functions and learned how to interpret the data obtained from the functions. The forecasters were receptive to the skills testing during the exercises. Problems with the Phase 2 training included 1) incomplete datasets for significant flood events, 2)incomplete documentation, and 3) inadequate practice time. The forecasters reported that the RIVERS and HEADWATERS hydrologic applications were more difficult to use because their access menu was too complicated, and the same was true for the data input requirements. Suggestions were solicited on changes and improvements to the training program. The evaluation included a variety oftracking and assessment activities, primarily questionnaires during 1990 and 1992, and workstation training exercises were administered to the forecasters during the fall 1992. The 12 survey respondents averaged 11 years NWS experience, and almost all had taken the NWS hydrologic training course. On average the forecasters reported having had about 65 hours of hydrology training while with the NWS (not counting formal training or college). Training time using the workstation functions was estimated to be about 10 hours (one-on-one and workstation exercises) and onthe-job practice time ranged between 8 and 40 hours. The forecasters recommended many changes, which are detailed in Section 7.2. Their strongest suggested change to the training program concerned a desire that the training be conducted within the context oftheir WSFO duties and responsibilities. Although most ofthe forecasters indicated that they acquired an intermediate degree of capability, they all needed to know more and would have liked the opportunity to learn more.
  • Document Type:
  • Rights Information:
    CC0 Public Domain
  • Compliance:
    Library
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files

More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at repository.library.noaa.gov

Version 3.26