Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Muddy Road equipment and operating procedures have been made, <br />it is recognized that there are problems remaining which are a <br />source of limitation in hail suppression operations. <br /> <br />In efforts to continue improving the effectiveness of the <br />Muddy Road cloud seeding, it is important to identify problem <br />areas. This was done in Section V, paragraph D, with the obvious <br />conclusion that further improvements in seeding coverage can be <br />made by: <br /> <br />faster aircraft response time <br />reduction of equipment malfunctions <br />earlier identification of storms which have hail <br />potential <br />maintaining air and ground equipment at constant <br />readiness <br /> <br />D. other Observations and Recommendations <br /> <br />other comments and conclusions which emerged during <br />Muddy Road V are briefly listed here for the benefit of future programs: <br /> <br />1. The computer cloud models were useful tools in making <br />seeding decisions. A recognized feature of the convective cloud <br />models is that they overestimate -the potential for -hail formation. In <br />the case of rain augmentation they also showed a potential for rain <br />increase more frequently than was actually experienced. One promi- <br />nent feature of the models (the GPCM and the CIC steady state) noted <br />in Muddy Road IV and V was that when their calculations showed no <br />potential for rain increase, the clouds indeed failed to respond to <br />seeding. <br /> <br />28 <br />