2015 Next Practices Workshop

OBSERVATIONS IN ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

"NEXT" PRACTICES: CONDUCTING FIELD OPERATIONS IN A CHANGING WORLD

April 21-23, 2015 

New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

Field campaigns entail years of planning and incur substantial cost, especially if they involve operation of major research platforms in remote locations.  Deploying and operating those assets even for short periods of time poses challenges that, if not addressed properly, can have significant negative consequences and potentially jeopardize the success of a campaign. Challenges vary from country to country and range from safety, health, and security risks to differences in cultural and social norms.

The workshop focused on sharing information on best practices, lessons learned and country-specific experiences by different groups for the planning and conduct of scientific research campaigns around the globe. The agenda consisted of a mix of short, focused presentations, plenary and small breakout sessions, as well as invited keynote speakers.  

The workshop was jointly organized by NCAR's Earth Observing Laboratory (EOL), which is responsible for managing and operating the US National Science Foundation's Lower Atmosphere Observing Facilities, and the German Aerospace Center (DLR), which manages and operates a fleet of aircraft in support of European airborne observational science.

Key Topics

NCAR-EOL and DLR are organizing a three-day workshop that will focus on sharing information on the best practices, lessons learned, and country-specific experiences as experienced by different groups. The following key topics will be at the heart of the workshop debates and discussions:

The organizers have developed a list of possible questions to be considered during break-out sessions that will occur with the first four major topics of the workshop. Each topic is listed below with a set of relevant questions. There is no expectation that all the questions will be addressed in the allocated meeting time. The discussion should focus on questions that are appropriate to the expertise in each break-out group and/or the highest priority issues facing all the facilities as agreed upon by the group. Other questions may be added (and answered) as desired by each group.

TOPIC 1 - MODES OF FIELD OPERATIONS

1. What kinds of operations does your organization routinely carry out and how are those handled? 
2. What works and what could be improved in your current operational strategies? 
3. What procedures and strategies have helped your organization in significantly improving and implementing deployments? 
4. Do you have experience with opportunistic/rapid response missions (e.g., severe weather events, environmental disasters) and if yes, what are some of the main operational aspects to be successful? 
5. How do you organize and handle multi-partner / multi-asset missions?
6. What can traditional research operations learn from the emerging UAV technologies and modes of operation? 
7. Do you see new trends in the kind of operations you are asked to support? Are there modes of operations that you no longer entertain and if yes, why?
8. What future modes of operations do you envision and how do you adapt and actively prepare yourself for such new approaches?
9. What emerging technologies have or promise to improve your operations? 
10. What do you consider to be the most challenging operations and why?

TOPIC 2 - CAMPAIGN FEASIBILITIES AND RISK ASSESSMENTS

1. What mission specification information do you require from the science team to prepare your feasibility assessment?
2. How does your organization assess the feasibility and risk of a campaign? 
3. What components are a critical part of your feasibilities, how is the information gathered and how do you evaluate and score those criteria? 
4. Do you have criteria that automatically preclude deployment of facilities, i.e., do you ever say no? 
5. What governs your choice of a campaign deployment base, especially for foreign deployments?
6. How is information disseminated to the various stakeholders? 
7. How does your funding agency incorporate your feasibilities and assessments in their decision making process?
8. How often do you re-evaluate mission critical criteria and what are the processes to implement needed scope changes? Is there a “kill switch/knock it off” option?
9. Are there ‘common’ project risks with common solutions? (This item also in country specific category)
10. Do you have guidelines for your science team to propose a ‘feasible’ project?
11. What approach do you take to proactive risk management? What has proven to be the best approach to handling campaign? 
12. In your experience, what are the most significant risks associated with field campaigns?
13. Do you have an Emergency Response Plan and if yes, what does it entail?
14. Are there science disciplines that are the most challenging to support? 

TOPIC 3 - CAMPAIGN PLANNING AND EXECUTION

1. At what point in a project’s life cycle does your organization get involved? 
2. What kind of operational personnel do you have, what are their backgrounds? Do you require specific training for your project managers?
3. How does your formal planning process look like? Do you have clearly defined milestones that everybody is aware of? How do you handle change requests, especially if they originate from the science team?
4. What is the best way to handle campaign coordination and planning across multiple funding agencies and facility providers? 
5. Who establishes local cooperation at a field site? 
6. What are the biggest issues contributing to project delays and what steps do you routinely take to prevents this from happening?
7. Do you rely on your science teams to be part of your operational team and in what form?
8. How much flexibility do you have in your resource allocation, especially if you have to deal with unforeseen obstacles and complications?

TOPIC 4 - COUNTRY-SPECIFIC OPERATIONS

1. How do you prepare your and your science team for operations in places that are significantly different to your own culture (e.g., religion, politics, gender inequality etc.)?
2. What responsibilities do you take on to assure that project participants stay save and healthy?
3. Which countries do you find the most difficult to get access to and/or operate in?
4. Do you maintain “Lessons learned” for field campaigns that address how to best operate in specific countries? Would you be willing to share those?
5. What are common foreign governmental constraints that can seriously impact mission execution?
6. Are there ‘common’ problems with common solutions? 
7. What strategies have allowed you to successfully overcome barriers imposed by government that are known for their reluctance to invite researchers into their country? 
8. What is the benefit and disadvantage of involving embassies in your operations?

TOPIC 5 - SPECIAL INTEREST DISCUSSIONS

Group 1 - Media and Public Engagement - Alison Rockwell (NCAR)

 

1. What role does the media play in the projects you support?

2.  Does your organization provide resources to develop an active media program as part of project planning? If yes, what information do you provide to make your project more understandable to the public and the media? 

3.  How do you assure/make it easier for media to obtain accurate and up-to-date information about your facilities and projects?

4.  Do you provide training for your staff to help with media interactions? For example, do you develop and share a common message (organization & project-related) with staff ahead of time?

5.  What kind of public engagement activities do you routinely incorporate into your field campaigns?

6.  What are the most effective strategies to reach out to the public? 

7.  What role(s) and niches can social media play/fill in field campaigns? Do you have any success stories from using social media?

8.  What vision do you have for the “Next Generation PR event?”

9.  In what ways can your education program be improved for users and stakeholders?

 

Group 2 - Student Participation and Training - Karen Kosiba (CSWR)

 

1.  Do you routinely recruit students for campaigns? If yes, how is recruitment done?

2.  What traditional tasks are given to students? What assignments are successful and what should be avoided?

3.  What assignments have you witnessed that raised the bar for hands-on field training (e.g., mission planning and execution of a research flight/ground-based IOP) ?

4.  How do you prepare students ahead of the campaign? What kind of training happens in the field?

5.  Do you conduct or know of “field campaigns” for students? Could those become a routine part of field campaigns?

6.  Would it make sense to share student resources during large campaigns to maximize their experience? (e.g., assignment of scientific mentors to students0

7.  Does your organizations have a process in place that track students after participating in a field campaign? (i.e., what makes them become the next generation of PIs)

8.  How do you assess and evaluate student experience?

9.  What opportunities/resources can we provide to help our respective organizations become a leader in atmospheric science education?

 

Group 3 - Aircraft Payload Certification and Instrumentation - Steve Deveraux (FAAM)

 

1.  How involved is your organization in the planning stages of payload selection and prioritization?

2.  How is payload certification handled within your organization?

3.  What resources and services does your organization provide to handle payload-related issues?

4.  What percentage of the payload is facility versus user-supplied?

5.  Is there a “kill switch” if instrumentation does not comply with procedures or severely impacts project schedules?

6.  Does your organization provide instrument-testing opportunities outside of usual project schedules?

7.  What part of the payload do you routinely provide for projects?

8.  What are the main hurdles to payload sharing across different organizations and platforms?

9.  What guidance do you provide to PI teams ahead of the campaign related to instrumentation and payload? 

 

Group 4 - Collaboration and Information Sharing - Mo Smith (FAAM)

 

1.  What kind of resources and information would be useful to share across different organizations?

2.  What tools are most useful for sharing information?

3.  Would it make sense to establish “sabbaticals” for project managers across organizations?

4.  How could information be shared with the university community and/or groups who conduct smaller scale projects on a more ad-hoc basis? (e.g., “Handbook for Field Campaigns”)

5.  Is there a need for an introductory training course for PI teams or field campaign participants who plan especially large campaigns?

6.  Is there a need for an annual meeting for facility providers?

 

Group 5 - Future Technologies and Tools - Vidal Salazar (NCAR)

1.  What existing technologies could be further explored for use in field campaigns (e.g., GoogleGlass for site surveys; Face Time with PIs)

2.  Is there a place for the use of Virtual Reality in field operations?

3.  What additional tools could be developed to further guide real-time decision making?

4.  Are there any apps that could be developed to help with the conduct of field campaigns? Are there apps that could help with extensive data collection?

5.  What next technology will revolutionize how we do campaigns?

 

Group 6 - Deployment Evaluation and Project Closure - Lou Lussier (NCAR)

1.  What kind of debriefs do you routinely carry out? At what level are these debriefs conducted? Who participates?

2.  Are there processes in place that allow for honest feedback provided by all project participants (facility staff, PIs, etc)?

3.  Do you follow formal project management practices to evaluate the original project management plan with the outcome of the project? Do you track mission creep and change requests? 

4.  What indicators/measurement criteria are used to assess the success of a project?

5.  What project closure procedures do you have in place?

6.  How do you capture lessons learned so they can be applied to future planning processes?

7.  What metrics do you collect for each campaign?

Dr. Linnea Avallone is an atmospheric chemist who specializes in the design, development, and deployment of instrumentation for measuring atmospheric trace gases, especially from airborne platforms.   During her 25-year research career, Dr. Avallone and her research group made measurements in more than 20 field campaigns that investigated upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric chemistry, boundary layer ozone chemistry, the impact of rocket emissions on the atmosphere, and cirrus cloud formation.   In support of this research, Dr. Avallone developed new instrumentation for measuring ozone, long-lived trace gases, and condensed water content.   She is an author on more than 60 peer-reviewed publications.   Dr. Avallone has taught courses on atmospheric chemistry, instrumentation, the relationship between science and public policy, and atmospheric science topics for non-science majors.   She is also committed to inclusivity in science and education, and has been involved with several initiatives to foster diversity among students and faculty, and within the atmospheric sciences community.   Dr. Avallone is currently manager of the National Science Foundation's Lower Atmosphere Observing Facilities and serves on several interagency groups related to research aviation and Earth observations. 

Andy Woollin was born in the United Kingdom and at a young age, emigrated to Brisbane, Australia. Andy completed his education in Australia before returning to Europe. Andy joined EUROCONTROL in 1994 after holding positions in the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority and the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force.  Andy is currently the Flight Planning and B2B Web Services Domain Manager at EUROCONTROL, responsible for the provision and evolution of the pan-European  flight planning and B2B web services.

Supervisory Special Agent Joseph Nieto serves as the Resident Agent in Charge (RAC) of the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) New Orleans Resident Office (NORO), where he oversees criminal investigations and monitors protective operations and law enforcement liaison activities in Louisiana, Southern Mississippi, and Southwest Alabama. Since joining the Foreign Service in 1999, Mr. Nieto has worked as a Special Agent in the Miami Field Office, where he investigated violations of Federal statutes related to passport and visa fraud, and conducted protective security details for the Secretary of State and visiting foreign dignitaries. As a member of a special security team, he deployed to provide emergency support to U.S. Missions in Yemen, Israel, and Nicaragua. Later, as Diplomatic Security’s senior advisor to the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), he developed and strengthened working relationships within the interagency community and in coordination with post management, participated in the planning of operational requirements for evacuations and increased security support to Embassies and U.S. citizens in Latin America and the Caribbean. While assigned to the Regional Security Office at the U.S. Embassies in Panama, La Paz, and Cairo, he managed a broad spectrum of security programs designed to protect personnel and facilities from terrorist attacks, civil unrest, and criminal activities.

Mr. Nieto earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Industrial Management from Norfolk State University, a Master of Science in Administration from Central Michigan University, and a Master of Military Operational Art & Science from the Air Command and Staff College. Prior to joining the Department of State, Mr. Nieto worked for the Department of the Navy as a weapon systems logistics manager, and served in the United States Air Force, where he continues his service as an officer in the reserves.