search

orcestra-campaign / flight_segmentation

Machine readable flight segment descriptions for selected platforms participating in ORCESTRA
0 stars 6 forks source link

Segmentation of flight HALO-20240816a #30

Closed HF7weatherman closed 1 week ago

HF7weatherman commented 2 months ago

Dear all! Although I added @Lucalino as the official reviewer for this MR, I would still ask you (@tmieslinger, @raphvog) to have a quick look on how I separated the EC underpass. During the continuous southward EC underpass, HALO did climbed to a higher altitude twice, thus I separated the continuous EC underpass into five straight legs (three constant altitude legs, two short climbing legs). Usually, nobody would likely analyze the two short climbing legs on their own, but it's necessary to define them in order to enable a continuous EC underpass leg. Anyways, I would be interested in your opinion on how I did the segmentation of the EC underpass and whether you would do it another way. In general, I think it is important to define a continuous EC underpass as it usually also agrees with an ITCZ cut, which is nice to analyze.

Furthermore, the EC meeting point must still be added, thus I marked this MR as draft.

HF7weatherman commented 2 months ago

@Lucalino @sortega87 @reredl Please have a look on my segmented flight. I tried to follow the conventions we discussed earlier. With respect to the name parameter, we decided to keep it rather flexible and informative, but I would still be interested in your opinion on this. If we all agree this flight is how we want to it, this flight could serve as a guideline.

sortega87 commented 2 months ago

@Lucalino @sortega87 @reredl Please have a look on my segmented flight. I tried to follow the conventions we discussed earlier. With respect to the name parameter, we decided to keep it rather flexible and informative, but I would still be interested in your opinion on this. If we all agree this flight is how we want to it, this flight could serve as a guideline.

Thanks @HF7weatherman! Looks good to me. My only comment would be with the fields "irregularities" and "comments". At the moment they seem to serve the same purpose, so I think we should just keep the comments field for the moment, moving what we have in irregularities to comments. What do you think?

sortega87 commented 2 months ago

@Lucalino @sortega87 @reredl Please have a look on my segmented flight. I tried to follow the conventions we discussed earlier. With respect to the name parameter, we decided to keep it rather flexible and informative, but I would still be interested in your opinion on this. If we all agree this flight is how we want to it, this flight could serve as a guideline.

Thanks @HF7weatherman! Looks good to me. My only comment would be with the fields "irregularities" and "comments". At the moment they seem to serve the same purpose, so I think we should just keep the comments field for the moment, moving what we have in irregularities to comments. What do you think?

My thinking is that for reporting irregularities we might want to add more structure later. For instance, we might later decide that an irregularity is defined by a time and a code, such that it is easy to highlight in the end user code.

HF7weatherman commented 1 week ago

Was reviewed together with @Lucalino and @tmieslinger.