Week 2 Debrief

While week 2 of the HWT Spring Experiment started out fairly quiet it certainly didn't end that way. Wednesday night's tornadoes in N. Texas ended up being the highlight of the demonstration so far and a lot of good feedback was collected from that event as well as the rest of the week. Check it out...

GOES-R CI
- 'On days where convection in more questionable it may be nice to have the ability to filter out the lower values to get rid of the confetti-like display, however on days where convective initiation is much more likely, those lower values provide some valuable information and help in keying in on particular growth.'
- 'Values of 57% or greater seemed to do fairly well on identifying initiation throughout the week.'

CTC
- 'The CTC is useful but does have trouble in areas of cirrus.'
- 'Most of the storms that developed did have a high POD, but also had some FAR.'
- 'In operations we're looking for which storms have potential. This is where the CTC would definitely be useful.'
- 'For situational awareness the CTC is a big thing. It identifies which storms to watch.'
- 'It would have been a better experience on Wednesday night if we'd had Rapid Scan Operations for GOES-13.'

Nearcast
- 'The CAPE field was good to compare to other CAPE fields though it can be hard to wrap your head around exactly what you're looking at and how it was computed.'
- 'The color scheme was a bit confusing. With the theta-E difference I'm used to thinking that green, yellow, and red values, are values to key in on, but in this case it was the darker blues and pinks.'
- 'The GOES-E and GOES-W images were definitely different, they didn't match, so I wasn't sure which one I should look at. It would definitely be useful to have a seamless overlap.'
- 'CAPE is conventionally what we're used to looking at, but the theta-E difference was also very useful.'
- 'Yesterday I looked at the theta-E and PW values... there were no high PW values [in west KS] and so it made sense why the storms there weren't growing. This information was very beneficial to have.'
- 'Then on Wednesday the storms in OK and TX formed right on the low-level and mid-level maximums of theta-E, so it did very well.'

RGB Airmass
- 'Yesterday the RGB showed showed drier, cooler air behind the convection which is what you would expect, but as the day went on you could see the moisture return to the area... because of this I kept my eye on what was going on there.'
- 'On Wednesday the dryline structure in OK and TX was very visible and we keyed in on this area.'
- The RGB gives you more information about the airmass source, it's composition, etc. It's very helpful information to have for situational awareness.'
- 'I liked the RGB as an overview, especially when you first sit down to see where airmasses are setting up. Though once you get into the nitty gritty of warning operations I didn't use it as much.'

Simulated Imagery
- 'We'd use it as a comparison to the actual IR to see what was influencing the model later.'
- 'It doesn't seem to handle anvils very well, but this may be a good thing because you could see where the storms were developing without the anvil getting in the way.'
- 'It's fairly remarkable what this imagery can do, giving you a satellite image so many hours in advance.'
- 'It did very well this past Tuesday in holding off on convective initiation up in the Western GL.'

PGLM
- 'Add the number or percentage of sensors currently working... for testing purposes it's crucial that we have this information so that we can use the product accurately.'
- 'Perhaps the 30 flashes/min threshold should be colored different so that it stands out more.'
- 'I used this product to identify which storms were starting to intensify and what cells I should key in on.'

Well that's a wrap for the week 2 debrief... but don't forget, our 'Tales from the Testbed' webinar will be beginning within thirty minutes and will cover the use of all of our experimental products during the N. Texas tornado event on Wednesday night. It should be a very interesting discussion!

Flash Extent Density and Updraft Strength

Playing a bit with the SPoRT flash initiation density product and the evolution of an updraft. Although it’s not a serious storm, it represents the ongoing pulsating activity very well which could eventually gain strength when entering a more unstable air mass to the east. Below you can find the ‘Flash initiation density product’ at 2035Z and 2040Z, showing a marginal increase in lightning activity. Reflectivity at the same time showed a core with 35-40 dBz and only a few isolated lightning strikes occurred.

051613 2035 UTC PGLM Flash Extent Density

051613 2040 UTC PGLM Flash Extent Density

051613 2055 UTC Reflectivty

At 2055Z, the storm finally strengthened in reflectivity fields (the core peaked at near 60 dBz) . Although that was just a temporal strengthening trend of that storm it is great to see the lead time you get with that lightning product before the updraft eventually strengthens. 

Helge

Daily Debrief: 5/15/13

Yesterday turned out to be the best day of the experiment thus far! Later in the evening we saw rapid convective initiation in Southern OK and Northern TX. Supercells formed just west of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and produced very large hail as well as a series of strong tornadoes in the area. Check out the image below of the pair of supercells just west of DFW. Tornados from these cells caused a lot of damage in Cleburne and Granbury.

051513 0036 UTC Reflectivity (top left), Velocity (top right), CC (bottom left), and TDS (bottom right)

A lot of blog posts and feedback were collected from this event on the various experimental products. Here are some of the comments noted in this morning's debriefing:

PGLM
- 'I noticed a correlation between the MESH and the lightning data. Several minutes after there was a big jump in flashes, there was also a big jump in MESH values.'
- 'The OUN network kept losing sensors so it was hard to know what was a jump and what was data loss. It would be helpful to have the status information so we know that we've actually lost sensors and and when we've got a jump.'
- 'In my opinion forecasters won't like that you have [use the lightning moving trace tool] manually.'
- 'In real time I can see [the moving trace tool] being a little clunky to use, a little labor intensive, but for analysis of an event it would be awesome to see that trending information.'
- 'It would helpful to see the lightning data plotted with the hail/MESH information.'
- 'We didn't hardly get any lightning with the Oklahoma bow echo... perhaps this could be an indicator that it wasn't going to be as strong of an MCS.'
- 'I paid attention to the lightning cores and where it was increasing significantly. This seemed to be a good indication of a strong storm.'

GOES-R CI
- 'There were a couple of times where the CI gave us an 80/90% value that developed/initiated into a deep convective core.'
- 'Values were overall low yesterday in TX, but where it pinpointed the higher values it did a good job of indicating strong initiation.'
- 'I thought it did extremely well. We were looking at a decent sized cu field and it seemed to pinpoint on specific cu very well.'
- 'Yesterday there was enough of a difference in the CI values where you could pick out the more significant initiation, but on other days it seems to be far more confetti-like.'
- 'THe Montague storm had a CI value of 60%. An hour later it initiated. Thirty minutes later we had baseball sized hail. Fifteen minutes after that we had a strong tornado.'
- 'It seemed to do well with the clusters of strong updrafts, but had trouble in higher terrain. This may be an elevation/snow effect.'

CTC
- We had good CTC rates on a number of storms that ended up falling apart. It ended up that the storms had good initiation but were moving into an environment not conducive to further growth.'
- 'The CTC did a good job yesterday, but it's still very important to know your environment. We saw strong signals, but not all initiated because of other environmental factors not seen in the CTC.'
- 'The CTC gave consistent lead time of at least 20-30 minutes for severe storms on multiple occasions [in Texas].'

Our last day of operations this week doesn't look to be nearly as exciting as yesterday. We're currently in the Goodland, KS, and North Platte, NE CWA's where things have already began to initiate, and may move further south later in the evening. Stayed tuned for further updates as the day progresses...

Flash Density Trace for Tornadic Storm near Leon, OK

A tornado was reported at 0022Z near the town of Leon in OK. The associated flash extent density trace from the parent storm is below. Focus on the time frame between 00Z and 0031Z. Notice a consistent trend upward in flash extent rate…with a peak value of 48 at 0021Z. Unfortunately…the trace was not created soon enough to capture the flash rate as the storm was intensifying prior to 00Z but the upward trend in flash rate correlated well with the pre-tornadic organization phase.

Here is a look at the storm near Leon at the time of the tornado report. Rotation tracks peaked at 11 s-1, MESH was maximized at 0.47″ and the vertically integrated ice peaked at 16 kg/m-2.

PGLM and Warnings in OUN

Loaded the one minute SPoRT Flash Extent Density product and used the editable Moving Trace tool. The moving trace circle had to be expanded for each frame; forecasters won’t like this because it doesn’t have a “apply to all” feature for this. It is also not intuitively obvious to forecasters that have been using other tools such as the warngen pathcast tool and distance/speed tool in AWIPS. The trace tool makes a graph showing “Flash Extent Density”, which showed trends in lightning for the selected storm.

1914 UTC Flash Extent Density. This product could be useful for NWS event support to describe specific lightning threats to outdoor activities. It could also be useful to identify strengthening updrafts that could produce large hail. One storm that showed a quick spike in Flash Extent Density above 50 Lma at 1912 UTC went on to drop 1 inch hail at 1926 UTC, for a 14 minute lead time. See Becca’s blog entry on this storm.

There were several bad one-minute data samples caused by loss of input data into the Oklahoma LMA. Two of them are illustrated below.

One minute Flash Extent Density showing the sharp drop that was apparently the result of a temporary loss of input data into the Oklahoma LMA. This occurred again at 1948 UTC see the trace graph below.

- Ostuno

PGLM and Rotation Tracks Associated with Weak Bow Echo

Rapidly developing convection showed a rapid increase in flash extent rates in the low teens to the mid 30s with a few pixels spiking in the 40s. This activity rapidly morphed into a bow echo that raced across south central Oklahoma. The SRM velocity gradient along the front end of the bow was very tight…and the rotation tracks product showed an interesting progression of bow-like rotation signatures from north to south. There were gaps between each line (seen in the graphic below) unlike a single storm track which is fairly continuous.

At the north end of the bow…the values of the rotation tracks were strongest which is to be expected in the region of the northern bookend vortex. The flash extent rate was relatively weak with the bow…along with weak sfc velocities estimated to be around 20 kts from mesonet observations. So although the reflectivity structure looked as if it could be an intense bow echo with moderate midlevel convergence…and rotation tracks were depicting embedded circulations within the line…no reports of severe wind or damage were reported or observed.

The highest values for sfc rotation tracks around 23s-1 were in the vicinity of the bow where smaller cells were merging with the main line near the northern bookend vortex. The best velocity couplet depicted on SRM went between Byng and Francis around 2349Z and was just southeast of the highest values for the sfc rotation tracks.

RJM

PGLM Flash Extent Density Comparison with MRMS Data

A lightning jump of 18 Flash/Min to 40 Flash/Min between 1908 and 1909Z with a second jump to 51 Flash/Min at 1912Z preceded a rapid increase in vertically integrated ice, MESH, and reflectivity at the -10C isotherm. A 1″ hail report was then acquired at 1926Z in Ratliff City.

The following plot shows the flash extent density trace for the storm approaching Ratliff City, OK. Focus on the timeframe between roughly 1900Z and 1930Z. Notice the strong jump between 1908Z and 1909Z.

MESH jumped from 0.63in (1910Z) to 1.10in (1912Z) to 1.26in (1914Z) with the last detection of 1.02in (1924Z) before dropping off thereafter. The following images show the jump from 1910Z to 1912Z.

051513 1910 UTC MESH

051513 1912 UTC MESH

Looking at the vertically integrated ice product…there was an increase in values from 14 kg/m2 (1908Z) to 20 kg/m2 (1910Z) to 32 kg/m2 (1912Z) with consistently high values above 30 kg/m2 through 1924Z. See the images below as the storm approached Ratliff City.

051513 1902 VIL

0501513 1910 VIL

051513 1912 VIL

Regarding reflectivity at the -10C isotherm…there was an increase to 59dBZ by 1912Z then 61dBZ at 1914Z (not shown).

Again, the 1″ hail report was acquired in Ratliff City at 1926Z which gives the lightning flash extent density tool a 17min lead time to the 1″ hail report.

RJM

Week 1 debrief

We have reached the end of a very successful first week at HWT. Today was a shorter day dedicated to the GOES-R focused 'Tales from the Testbed' as well as a weekly debrief. This debrief covered our activities from yesterday as well as a wrap-up discussion from the entire including topics like which products were used, how they were used, what we can take away from the experience, and what is the next step for the experiment products within in an operational setting. Check it out...

PGLM
- 'We were able to successfully issue a warning in Lubbock based only the PGLM and golf ball sized hail resulted from the storm.'
- 'The one minute update for the total lightning data is a huge benefit over the traditional radar updates.'
- 'There was a storm that barely reached 40 flashes and ended up dropping penny sized hail, so [the PGLM] was fairly successful in this case.'

Cloud Top Cooling
- 'We had upwards of an hour and a half lead time given by the CTC in the Lubbock/Amarillo area.'
- 'The product wasn't useful in areas were there was cirrus contamination.'

GOES-R CI
- 'There was a 97% CI hit on the storms in Lubbock and it was successful.'
- 'The CI is too noisy. THe 10, 20, and 30% values are just a little too much. Maybe it would be better to use values of only 50% and greater.'
- 'The strength of signal concept was good.'
- 'The instantaneous concept of the CI made the product less intuitive, it jumped around. Perhaps it would be better if it focused more on the trend (i.e. a consistently increasing strength of signal on a particular area of cu).'
- 'You could see some of the trend in the CI, but then it faded again. If this happens, as a forecaster you think maybe [storm development] isn't going to happen.'
- 'Some additional continuity would be nice... for example, giving a probability of convective initiation over a specific area at a specific time.'

Forecaster thoughts... i.e. how would do we integrate these into an actual operational setting?
- 'A lot of the experimental products a very useful, but for a warning forecaster their first instinct would be to look back to the base data. It seems that this data would be more useful to a mesoscale analyst, who has time to look at each product in detail.'
- 'It may be hard for a warning forecaster to be looking at the experimental data because there's just so much of it, especially when things are rapidly developing.'
- 'As a warning forecaster I do use some of the experimental data when I can, but don't always have tie to look at all that stuff. That would definitely be useful for a mesosscale analyst and share with the warning forecaster.'
- 'Our mentality is, warning are the most important thing, even in an experimental setting... so it's good to view these new products with that mindset.'
- 'The training had me comfortable with the products when we came in... learning how the interpretation various and also finding out how to work with the products together was a challenge.'
- 'I could see myself using all the products we used this week in an operational setting.'
- 'You have to incorporate the products into an operational mindset. Once you get more used to them it becomes easier, but it's definitely not an immediate process. It take time to become comfortable with them and figure out how exactly it can be incorporated into your own procedures.'

The discussion today, particularly regarding integrating these new products into current forecast operations, was very enlightening. Forecasters have their own mindset when issuing warnings, etc., and  trying to integrate new products into this process is an interesting challenge faced by all in research to operations. However, testbeds like HWT are, I believe the stepping towards towards a successful R to O, and I look forward to continuing this effort next week.

See you then!

Warning Issued with only PGLM Lightning Jump

At 2226z a storm in the LUB CWA had 1 flash on the pGLM and 10 minutes later the number was up to near 40 flashes.

An experimental warning was issued based only on this and without any other data. About 5 minutes post warning, the HSDA algorithm hit for large hail.

Purple color is large hail

Several minutes later the MESH hit at 1.02″

The pGLM was the first hit of possible severe weather and gave 5-10 minutes more lead time to when the MRMS products hit for severe hail.

Hampshire

PGLM Flash Extent Density in Linear Convection

The PGLM flash extent density product was useful at picking out areas of more severe convection in a linear storm segment. While the lightning “jumps” were not all that impressive (~20 to 30 flashes/min), they were still significant enough in conjunction with MESH near an inch to issue a warning. This is evident in the four panel image below which shows FED, Comp Reflectivity and MESH.

Austin/Frank

PGLM Flash Extent Density Helps with Tracking Storm Intensification

We finally had storms develop within the West Texas LMA. The strongest updraft this evening showed marked ramp up of flashes to 40 just as the storms 50 dBZ core reached 26.25 kft briefly before coming back down about 10 minutes later with the flash density also subsiding back to 15 to 25 flashes. Although the storm didn’t reach severe criteria, it was beneficial that the Flash Extent Density updates in 1 minute intervals, which lets the warning forecaster monitor for rapid updraft development between radar volume scans. This storm resulted in a report of dime size hail.

0.5 reflectivity and Flash Extent Density

Kurtz

Daily Debriefing 5/9/13

Yesterday evening (2-10pm) turned out to be a busy shift, our focus on the OUN and LUB CWAs. Multiple warnings were issued and a lot of good feedback was collected. We even got a bonus and were able to watch a storm roll right overhead from the NWC's observation deck!

Really neat lightning (and hail) show aside, here's some of the forecaster comments from our shift:

Cloud Top Cooling
- 'There was a signal early that rapidly cooled to -26C and I did issue a warning off of that.'
- 'Because of the jet streak moving through central Texas and then the cirrus blowoff from the development of various convective cells, the product struggled due to the cloud contamination.'
- 'Radar can't look through mountains... in the same manner, satellite can't look through clouds.' ...from a product PI

GOES-R CI
- The GOES-R CI had the same struggle at the the CTC. Because of the cirrus contamination forecasters weren't able to utilize it aside from a few cells early on.

PGLM and associated lighting applications
- 'There were some pretty impressive lightning jumps in storms that eventually produced strong winds.'
- 'The lightning jumps did seem to be associated with storm top divergence, storm top growth... so there was a jump on the strengthening of the updraft and the storm itself.'
- 'I liked the idea of the tracking tool, but it was difficult to use with the storms that were barely moving.   It became a very labor intensive task.'
- Forecasters also noted that the number of strikes in the OKLMA network were fewer than anticipated for the strength of the storms. However, after some exploration it was discovered that not all of the LMA sensors were functional and this limited the amount of flashes detected.

Today's focus area will be slightly further south, covering San Angelo and Fort Worth, TX with possible coverage of OUN later in the afternoon. Cloud cover is already widespread over a broad area in this region, but we are hopeful for some clearing and development on the back end where the GOES-R CI and the CTC can be utilized again.

Flash Extent Density Jump

One cluster of storms over southwest Oklahoma produced the most impressive FED signal of the day. While we’ve had a warning out for this storm for some time, no reports have been received, and MESH has kept values generally at or below one inch.

**Update**

One rapidly intensifying cell has shown a lightning jump with up to ~50 flashes/min and is likely producing severe hail per MESH.

PGLM Total Lightning Data Aids in Warning Issuance

A rapid ramp up in total lightning data led to increased lead time for a Severe Thunderstorm Warning this afternoon. The Flash Extent Density product increased to 19 flashes per minute prior to warning issuance.

Flash Extent Density product showing an increase to 19 flashes per minute prior to warning issuance.

Flash Extent Density further increased following the warning as severe hail was reported.

Flash Extent Density product increased to 32 flashes per minute as severe hail was reported.

Frank/Guseman

PGLM Flash Extent Density Unusually Low for Severe Supercells

Below is a 4 panel image of Flash Extent Density, Composite Reflectivity, and MESH. With two supercells indicating large hail via MESH, one would expect larger values of FED, which have only maxed out around 5 flashes/min. However, this may have something to do with distance from the LMA centroids. We will continue to monitor. In any case, the PGLM products are very useful for aviation and public safety interests for points downstream.

**Update 2107 UTC**
Monitoring the storm following Flash Extent Density Trace Tool, it appears many of the storms have entered a period of decreasing lightning activity. This is also apparent in the plan view of FED. This would suggest a downward trend in storm severity, but will monitor to see if this comes to fruition.

Austin/Hampshire

Diagnosing Storm Growth Using Flash Extent Density

With convective initiation underway, we assess the intensification of thunderstorm updrafts using PGLM Flash Extent Density to determine electrical activity within the storm. The cell below has shown several weak lighting pulses over the last 15 minutes and is showing signs of becoming severe. Reflectivity is on the rise and the lightning activity appears to be foretelling of possible storm severity quite well.

Two panel of Flash Extent Density (left) and composite reflectivity (right)

Pseudo-GLM use from May 7th

Yesterday we had the opportunity to view the PGLM data southeast of Lubbock, Texas courtesy of the West Texas Lightning Mapping Array.  The results were interesting.  At past Experimental Warning Programs, we have seen flash extent densities of over 80 flashes for the Oklahoma LMA which updates every minute.  However, yesterday, the PGLM maxed out at 41 flashes for the storms that developed.  This was less than we had expected, based on previous years with one minute data.  The environment was interesting as these were elevated thunderstorms.

Although lower than viewed in the past, this maximum did precede the full development of the storms, although storm reports are hard to come by as this is a low population region.  Overall, this was a good dry run for today (May 8th) as we will be active in the western portions of the Oklahoma LMA today and will have the chance to fully try out the PGLM observations and the lightning tracking tool.

The PGLM observations at 2312 UTC showing a maximum flash extent density of 35 flashes (blue grid box).

The corresponding radar reflectivities from the Lubbock radar at 2321 UTC.  Note that the PGLM was greatest with the core of the main storm.

Daily debriefing: May 8th

Last night's focus area was in western KS, centering on the Dodge City and Goodland, KS CWAs with one team also monitoring activity in Lubbock, TX. Storms fired late in the afternoon and kept us fairly busy for the remainder of the night. Forecasters had a lot to say about the GOES-R products. Check out some of the feedback below:

Cloud Top Cooling:
- 'Cloud-top Cooling helped early before cirrus contamination.'
- 'Most storms that went on to product large hail had a strong CTC signal.'
- '[The CTC] provided good situational awareness, was a good quicklook and helped identify areas of interest.'
- 'It provided lead time of up to an hour for storms that produced large hail, especially wehre there was a persistent strong signal over through several satellite scans.'
- 'Seeing the consistently higher CTC signals in an operational environment would give me further confidence to warn on a particular cell.'
- 'A lot of time there were strong signals for the robust cores, though not always.'

GOES-R CI:
- 'The CI didn't help with individual elements; that is, it was noisy. There were a wide range of values in a small area. However, backing out and taking a broader view, it gave a general idea of where I could start to expect things to occur.'
- 'Even right before storms got going there weren't a lot of clustered 90% values, but there were a few here and there... so the trend was good.'
- 'The CI was noisy, especially within large cu fields. It may be helpful if it were thresholded a little bit, if only 50% or greater probability values were shown.'

Nearcasting:
- 'While waiting for stuff to get going, I really enjoyed the Precipitable Water difference. There was cu in an area of low-level moisture and as soon as they moved into an area of higher moisture, they fired.'
- 'It helped to know what was happening in the current atmosphere and what to expect later.'
- 'The development to the west was associated with marginal moisture, but just to the east there was a lot more, and as soon as those cu moved into that area it lit up like a Christmas tree.'

Simulated Imagery:
- 'The IR satellite forecast was a little early but really showed the individual storms from western KS south through Texas. It did also keep the are in KS a little longer, which did pan out.'

PGLM:
- 'It was a precursor to what happened... flash density increased to 30 flashes/min with one cell and five minutes late it produced large hail, the only hail report near Lubbock.'


Again, keep an eye on the blog. Today looks to be a busy day with the focus on Texas and Oklahoma. More details on this later in the afternoon...

EWP2013 7 May 2013 2215 UTC Mesoscale Discussion

With multiple scans of CI/CTC showing iminent or ongoing convective initiation over Lubbock’s area, will localized one desk at the LUB wfo. This will give the testbed an opportunity to evaluate some of the PGLM products available in the LUB LMA. The image below from 2145 UTC shows where storms are developing in extreme south central parts of the CWA.

Radar trends show activity is also on the uptick at DDC, with ongoing supercells over GLD’s area. Will keep two teams stationed at these locations to optimize this marginal severe weather setup. The image below is a four panel of MESH products and composite reflectivity over the DDC and GLD CWAs.

Will continue to monitor trends, but all areas appear to be covered at this time.

Austin

PGLM Assists in Severe Thunderstorm Warning (Repost)

Animation from 12 May 2011 covering from 2211-2226 UTC. The PGLM flash extent density is on the left with the corresponding radar reflectivity on the right. To see the animation, please click on the image.

Today’s afternoon shift started with forecasters working across the Norman, Tulsa, and Little Rock county warning areas. With the some storms beginning to form south and east of Norman, Oklahoma, it was felt this would be a good opportunity to take another look at the PGLM flash extent density observations and focus on total lightning. The PGLM flash extent density was very useful in identifying when the first cloud-to-ground strikes would occur. The PGLM was preceeding the first cloud-to-ground strike by approximately 30 minutes today.
As the the afternoon progressed, the storms began to intensify, both on radar and with the PGLM flash extent density and we shifted from using the PGLM for lightning safety and moved into warning operations. By 2211 UTC on 12 May 2011 (the first image of the loop shown above), three severe thunderstorm warnings were in effect. The area of interest for this post is in between the two existing warnings in the west. At 2211, the PGLM flash extent density was no more than a few flashes per minute. By 2214 UTC the number of PGLM flashes was already approaching 40 per minute. This continued to rapidly increase through 2220 UTC when the PGLM flash extent density observe 82 flashes in a 1 minute interval for a single 8×8 km grid box. This was one of the largest lightning jumps of the day with an increase of 75 flashes per minute in a nine minute time span. With this major lightning jump, along with the forecaster’s interrogation of radar data, a new severe thunderstorm warning was issued at 2226 UTC. This warning was later verified with several severe hail reports.