Forum Discussion

I'd like to add an additional question (related to cost implications):

In many cases, operating and maintaining a station exceeds the financial and human resources of the organizations. In many countries, more than one station is required to be GBON compliant. This seems simply impossible. What is your opinion on this?

The use of manual vs automated UAS should be a nuanced consideration. If human resources are available, manual radiosonde release may well be the most pragmatic and cost-effective approach for many countries, and offer greater flexibility to hit more exacting climatic/height targets for ascents (and repeat ascents). However, if staff are not available in a particular location required by GBON network targets/design or staff costs (and/or efficiency of use of that staff resource) are prohibitive, this may encourage a more favourable environment for automated UAS.

Cost Implications: Up front capital costs may often be higher for automated UAS with the installation of specialised equipment and subsequent maintenance costs. However, manual ascents will often need construction of eg balloon shed infrastructure and one should take a Total Cost of Ownership/Operation (TCO) approach to decision making, with ongoing staff costs and availability being a key consideration, depending on the national context. It is not clear currently whether Compliance funding will include staffing costs and, without this, whether a manual GBON station will be feasible in some locations.

Human Capacity: Manual sonde operation offers the lower-entry approach to providing UAS operations and is potentially more sustainable unless appropriate autosonde technical engineering maintenance training can be given to either local NMS staff in situ or a suitable commercial maintenance contract be put in place. Human sonde releases can introduce error (and possibly the need for re-releases if failure is human-induced) and the NMS needs to implement strong health and safety protocols for gas handling to mitigate safety risks, especially if flammable hydrogen (cheaper than helium) is used. Training on either approach can be provided by manufacturers or, potentially, from expert WMO support groups or RTCs where capability exists.

Site Security: Lack of NMS staff is not necessarily a barrier to using autosondes in favour of manual radiosondes - suitable fencing/access/security should be considered, ideally in a secure NMS or partner environment such as a military compound or airport, in either scenario.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M): Automated systems can be very reliable and cost effective, but are more complex and necessarily will require greater maintenance than manual sites - so internal technical skills or an outsourced support contract are required to ensure routine and reactive maintenance of automated UAS.

Recommendations: Where NMS human resources (at an affordable TCO-led approach to staff costs) exist within a desired GBON location, it may well be preferable to utilise manual radiosonde release in LDCs/SIDS on the grounds of practicality, cost-effectiveness and the potential for reaching higher sonde altitudes, etc. However, this should not be universally assumed, especially where staff resources eg in remote locations do not exist, and - as such - a balanced cost-benefit approach to decision making should be employed in determining the most appropriate technology.

Thanks for the chance to provide input. As you're aware, we have recommended manual balloon launchers in the Pacific countries where we're the Peer advisor.

 The main reasons for this are:

• The manual systems have less complex and less costly maintenance compared to automatic systems. Automatic systems require highly specialised maintenance technicians which would be a challenge to source in remote, developing country settings. Even in Australia, the Bureau relies on maintenance support from the vendor and when we have had outages it was taken several months to get the stations back online. In remote developing countries, this would likely take much longer.
• Manual systems are more resilient in harsh, tropical environments with high humidity and temperatures. We have experienced some challenges with the automated systems in the Australian tropics. For example, condensation in tropic regions have caused issues with balloons adhering to the side of chambers unless an effective air-conditioning system is operational.
• Site security and basic site maintenance are major challenges in the countries we've worked in. We've found the best solution is to have NHMS staff on site who can provide first-in maintenance and security for both surface and upper air stations.
• Most of the countries we've worked in already have a network of staffed stations. The manual systems leverage this existing resources, and support local capacity development and employment.  The NHMS have major challenges in funding and procuring overseas equipment, but find it much easier to get budget support for local staff and are usually supportive of providing additional staff for these stations.
• With existing staff on-site already, and lower labour costs, the manual systems, with lower capital costs, are more cost effective than the automatic systems. 
• We find the automatic systems stack up best economically in high-cost countries with ready access to skilled contractors for maintenance. Such contractors aren't common in the countries we've worked with, and the countries have major challenges in procuring international contractors for maintenance.
• The above points are also consistent with the Bureau's approach in Australia where we have retained manual upper air systems at all our remote staffed locations (e.g. Antarctic, Macquarie Island, Cocos Island), and moved to automatic systems mainly in unstaffed mainland stations that are accessible for regular maintenance.

 Please follow up with us if you need more clarity.  My thanks to my colleague Rob B for his excellent input.

 Regards

Karl