RPP Focal Point Training Survey - Fall 2002
Catalog of Responses
FSL Evaluation Team


Fall 2002 GFESuite Training Workshop
 

1: What is your position title?
 

Position Count
Senior/Lead Forecaster/Meteorologist 18
Journeyman/General Forecaster/Meteorologist 10
Information Technology Officer 6
HAS Forecaster 3
Science Operations Officer 2
Met. Interns 2
Regional Smart Tool Focal Point 1
Research Meteorologist 1
Total
43

 
 

2: Rate your level of expertise with the GFESuite.
N=43, mean=3.0, std=0.8, min=1, max=5


[0] 0=no answer

[1] 1=total beginner

[10] 2=intermediate

[20] 3=experienced

[11] 4=advanced

[1] 5=expert
 
 
 
 
 

3: Comments
 

Q#002: 4=advanced

This workshop helped a ton and a half. It tied up all the loose ends from the other GFE training courses.

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

I really enjoyed the hands-on training. The lab exercises were great.

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

Having used GFESuite for almost 2 years now (and working with it every day whether I am on aviation or public shift), I have gotten pretty comfortable with GFE. There are still some items "deep in the bowels of the system" that I need improvement on, but they are not many--so I am not an expert yet!

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

I am very glad that I took this course... the information provided was extremely valuable

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

I picked up a tidbit or two from every presentation.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

I am very glad that I took this course... the information provided was extremely valuable

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

Have only done limited configuration but can manipulate it very well during the forecast process.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

Rating given in #2 is based on operational use and local configuration activities related to GFESuite. Weakest level of expertise is related to the development of Smart Tools. Although I have had programming experience a number of years ago, I have not been able to devote a significant amount of time to working on Smart Tools, Smart Init., and Procedures.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

I am primary focal for GFE technical issues in <my office>.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

The coarse was well put together and informative. The instructors were extremely helpful and knowledgeable with any questions posed to them. They are all well appreciated with regards to answering questions from the field on the IFPS listserver.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

advanced in some aspects, but not many.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

Kind of an open-ended question. I am probably considered the "expert" in my office, but if you put me in an office with a bunch of gung-ho 20-somethings, I would probably be considered a bit behind everyone else!! Seriously, I would never consider myself an expert in such a sophisticated piece of software...perhaps in several years (when I am about to retire) I will allow myself to be bumped up to the "advanced" level! More than likely, the python scripters and smart toolers out in the field are REALLY who I would consider to be the GFESuite experts

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

The workshop was the best I have attended. All material was relevant while the on-hands hours in the computer room were a great learning tool.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

At the RFC... I am the GFE focal point and have loaded version 18.3 on a Linux box inside the AWIPS firewall. As a summer project... I configured the system to our needs and loaded any pertinent smart tools/procedures. Also... I have written a couple procedures/smart tools to aid in the generation of our QPF images for the web.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

Spin up time as focal point has been less than 1 year

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

I would answer advanced if I created smart tools or smart initialization but I just download this type of script

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

No formal training. I am the new IFPS focal point so I am trying to get quickly up to speed.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

Intermediate before the workshop...progressed to experienced after.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

I've dealt with configuration files quite a bit; I've used Smart Init, ifpIMAGE, ifpnetCDF, and ifpAG; I can write a few simple (but useless) Smart Tools and Procedures, and I can use GFE for forecasting. But I hadn't used GFE for almost a year (besides for forecasting) prior to the workshop, and the last release I was familiar with was RPP 14.I was not too familiar with how ISC worked, nor was I familiar with any new features after RPP14.And having recently been made a backup focal point, I'd never had to keep up an operational version of GFE.
 

4: Briefly list all the GFESuite training you have received to date.
 

Q#002: 5=expert

NWSTC courses, regional training, FSL online documentation review.

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

IFPS Focal Point Course at NWSTC This Workshop

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

IFPS training course at NWSTC on-site training

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

1) GFESuite modules within the IFPS Focal Point Course (NWS Training Center) 2) Southern Region Advanced GFESuite Course (RPP 15; NWS Southern Region) 3) GFESuite Training Workshop (NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory)

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

IFPS Focal Point training at NWSTC. I've read completely through the GFE training, Smart Tool documentation, Text Formatter documentation, etc on FSL's web site.

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

Other than a bit at the IFPS Focal point course at the NWSTC, this is it.

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

IFPS Localization IFPS Workshop IFPS Focal Point Course GFE Workshop

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

IFPS FP course, NWSTC This workshop.

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

IFPS Focal Point Course Western Region GFE Workshop RPP Focal Point Workshop

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

IFPS Focal Point Course at NWSTC RPP Focal Point Course at FSL

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

NWSTC IFPS Course Spring 2001Nearly all FSL documentation since Spring 2001IFPS List Server since Spring 2001 This course.

-

Q#002: 4=advanced

IFPS training at Kansas City Training center. Web documentation. Central Region provided Focal training at an "experienced site.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

One-On-One training within our office with previous Focal Point. IFPS focal point course in KC.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

IFPS focal point training at NWSTC On-line documentation from FSL GFESuite workshop at FSL

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

Classroom training has consisted of only the IFPS training offered at the NWS training center, and training from the workshop. Everything else is self-taught.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

April 2001 - Basic overview at NWSTC IFPS F.P. Course September 2002 - GFE Training Workshop August 2001-Present - OJT on GFE

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

IFPS Training, Kansas City, two weeks. SR Training on Linux PC dedicated to GFESuite, one week. Reading release notes and working with GFE on shift, for the last 1.5 years.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

IFPS course at NWSTC

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

IFPS Training Course, This Workshop.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

IFPS Focal Point training class at NWSTC, KC - Feb 2002 GFESuite Advanced Concepts Workshop at Boulder, CO - Sep 2002.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

I received training from the 2 week IFPS focal point course in Kansas City and this workshop.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

I went to the focal point training class, web pages, listserver, etc.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

On a 2-day trip to Charleston, WV, I worked with forecasters to learn GFE techniques in an operational setting. I also trained myself on topics such as configuration and smart tools via the listserver and online documentation.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

WRH Workshop GFESuite Workshop Fall '02IFPS FP course (limited GFE training).

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

Local office training. Attended two-week IFPS training course at NWSTC in KCMO (Oct 2001).Attended IFPS Western Region Workshop in Salt Lake City, UT (Jan 2002).Attended GFESuite Training Workshop at Boulder, CO. (Sep 2002).

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

IFPS Focal Point Training Class in at NWSTC Southern Region IFPS Focal Point Training Class in FTW

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

I was provided a 1 1/2 hour training session by the SOO when the program was brought on-station. I have used the User Guide, Infolist and information gained through experienced regional and local focal points, the info list and in contacts made with FSL and MDL folks.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

IFPS Course at NWS TCY our GFE Workshop.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

IFPS Course at NWSTC in Kansas City, MO IFPS Workshop at WRH in Salt Lake City, UT GFE Suite Fall 2002 Workshop at FSL in Boulder, CO

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

OJT - 10 months consisting of self directed exploration and attendance of the NWSTC IFPS Training. FSL GFE training Sept 2002. NWSTC Intermediate Unix class.

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

NWSTC IFPS Focal Point

-

Q#002: 3=experienced

this training on site training went to awips/gfe training for two weeks at NWSTC about 18 months ago.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

Just finished the GFESuite Training Workshop. I had gone through the prerequisite web site training before the workshop as well.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

Started out self-taught, using the info on the RPP website (and under the 'help' button on GFE).Sat in on the Western Region IFPS workshop...but wasn't officially registered, so I wasn't assigned a workstation. This workshop was my first 'real' training.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

NWSTC Spring 2001SRH Course Fall 2001.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

IFPS Focal Point Course

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

2001: IFPS Focal Point Class2002: GFE Suite Workshop.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

GFESuite workshop September 2002 Boulder CO OJT at WFO Hastings NE

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

No formal training. I am the new IFPS focal point so I am trying to get quickly up to speed.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

The GFESuite online Tutorials, and the Workshop.

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

GFE Focal Point Training, Kansas City-GFESuite Training Workshop, Boulder

-

Q#002: 2=intermediate

NWSTC IFPS Focal Point Course

-

Q#002: 1=total beginner

Just this class.
 

5: Briefly describe (if any) training you have conducted with your staff (include time estimates).
 

Helped with one-on-one training of forecasters with IFPS/GFE

-

I have provided approximately three hours of formal GFESuite training to each forecaster. I have also spent several hours providing informal GFESuite training to each forecaster while on shift.

-

One-on-one GFE training with all staff members (approximately 3 hours per staff member). Team training about the IFPS/NDFD concept, and how we can use GFE to improve the information we provide (approximately 5 hours total)

-

I have worked with various members to varying degrees, explaining new features, features they may not have know of, and my configurations.

-

Have trained all staff in the knobology of GFE (summer 2002)

-

Conducted one-on-one training with staff on how to use GFE operationally (8 hours per forecaster).

-

I trained the staff at our office one-on-one... about 4 hours each (broken up into 2 sessions). Seventeen people were trained on GFE in our office... we anticipate refresher training with the addition of information on ISC and eventually DFC. Training others is an excellent way to train yourself!

-

The old focal point provided a good deal of training to each staff member on using the software. A rough estimate would be about 15 to 20 hours or so.

-

None

-

Limited primarily to knobology orientation (~2 hours)provided to only 1-2 staff members.

-

A vast majority of the on-station training of GFE was conducted by the SOO. The SOO normally conducted approximately three (3) - two hour long training sessions on IFPS. I have performed informal "one-on-one" training on subsequent Builds of GFE, as well as transmit formal information by e-mail following each new installation. Average time involved...less than 15 minutes per person, as needed.

-

One-on-one training with staff, about 10-15 hours. SOO did most of this training. Memo's to staff in IFPS TIPS, about 5 to 10 hours.

-

Most training conducted by previous IFPS focal point who has transferred to another office.

-

Given three 2-hour hands-on training to each staff member. I continue to answer any questions that come up in our operational environment. In addition, I try to give a GFE tip every week.

-

1. Introduction to IFPS/GFE knobology (6 hr)2. Forecast Methodology (3 hr)

-

Entire training suite from IFPS Course plus continuous updates with new installs. Approx 3-6 hours per person. Trained several other offices at our office, plus travel to a neighboring office.

-

IFPS Overview Seminar (1 & ½ hours each, 5 times) in Apr-Jun 2002individual GFE training from Jun-Sep 2002 (total of 40-60 hours)

-

Conducted official staff training summer 2001 to early part of 2002.

-

My previous SOO did most of the training while I configured the system. I will be training the staff on IFPS 11.3.

-

I trained the staff on the various parts in two hour sessions.

-

Two 1-on-1 sessions with each of the forecasters/managers, each session lasted approximately 3 hours.

-

None. We currently do not use GFE/IFPS at the RFC.

-

2 group sessions (10 forecasters, 3 hours each). 2 sets of one-on-one training with each forecaster (4 hours each set per forecaster). Estimated 30 hours of individual one-on-one training in addition to the above.

-

Initial GFE knobology training (including smart tools).I was training forecasters for probably a total of 3 or 4 shifts.

-

Either myself or my assistant gave each staff member 5 days of one on one training on all aspects of IFPS and GFESuite.

-

SOO and I conducted half-day training sessions for each of the GS13s and GS12s.One-on-one training sessions were conducted for staff meteorologists after the group training session mentioned above. These training sessions lasted about 45 minutes to 2 hours per person. HMT's have also been given one-on-one training from the assistant IFPS focal point who is a GS12.

-

Assisted SOO with training of staff (8 Hours)

-

I have provided links for training to all the operations staff. When new builds have been posted that information goes to the staff for prior reading. The messages are attached with the offering to provide one-on-one training.

-

GFE knobology (8 hours + per staff member)

-

Job sheets covering basic GFE functions, 11 total job sheets each taking about an hour to complete. One-on-one training lasting about 4 hours per person.

-

Two full days of lecture/exercises with each staff member (in teams of two). Five follow-on seminars.

-

I conducted initial GFE training with the staff when we first "spun-up" on IFPS during Fall 2001--this took approx. 4-6 hours per person. As some new major features have been added during subsequent upgrades (ISC, major changes in IFPS instructions, going to GFE text formatters), there have been smaller training sessions to go over these with the staff--each session for this has taken less than an hour per person.

-

None. The primary FP trained the staff.

-

Mainly one-on-one during shifts...most sessions last an hour or less.

-

Our Soo conducted about 4 hours of training with each met. We also had a couple 1 hour overview sessions with the whole staff.

-

(at WFO Key West) dedicated one-on-one training sessions with the staff covering the basics of IFPS including the varius operational skills of grid management and editing and population publishing of grids. Estimated time spent with each staff member (5-10 hours).

-

One-on-one training never more than an hour at a time

-

Training of the HAS staff will take place later this fall and winter season.

-

Staff Training Group - 2 hours Booster Seminars (3) - Address individual GFE topics such as editing grids, using smart tools, loading new model data and making png images and saving the official grids.

-

I did a 4 hour training after NWSTC course with each forecaster and met tech. Then did a follow up 2 hour a couple of weeks later. Did several 1 hour refreshers or more advanced training on request.

-

myself, soo and assistant awips focal point do one to one training with other staff on the latest GFE forecasting techniques that we have learned from the various GFE training materials available on the web....and from my NWSTC and Boulder training. On average...two or three hours with each forecaster. This is an on going process.
 

6: Rate the usefulness of the each of the Joint Morning Session presentations listed below:
 

GFESuite Progress, Plans, and its relationship with IFPS, AWIPS, RAP, RPP, NDFD, and IOC

N=43, mean=4.1, std=0.9, min=0, max=5
 

[1] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[4] 3=adequate

[25] 4=useful

[13] 5=very useful
 
 
 

7: Comments
 

Q#006: 5=very useful

I found this quite useful. Before the workshop, all I knew was what GFE was and what an RPP site did. I didn't know what all the other parts of IFPS were (still don't) and how RAP, NDFD, and all the other acronyms fit in.

-

Q#006: 5=very useful

This session helped considerably to clear up the confusion as to the purpose of the RPP/RAP sites and how FSL/MDL's role in IFPS is intertwined with the NWS Strategic plan.

-

Q#006: 5=very useful

This was an important and very useful session because there have been numerous changes with IFPS implementation over the past couple of years, and it was important to make sure all of the attendees were on the same page.

-

Q#006: 5=very useful

This was a much needed training! I came back from this training very upbeat and convinced that this GFE software package is the way to go...I am going to do my best to convince the rest of the staff too.

-

Q#006: 5=very useful

Cleared up a lot of definitions that had caused me some confusion

-

Q#006: 4=useful

It was useful to get historical context

-

Q#006: 4=useful

It was a good introduction to development history of the GFESuite, IFPS, and RPP. It was also informative to know the various help/support options supplied by the MDL and FSL. however, it was a little confusing when it came to the difference between the RAP and RPP.

-

Q#006: 4=useful

Its nice to see where we're going and how we're getting there.

-

Q#006: 4=useful

Good information, helped answer a lot of questions.

-

Q#006: 4=useful

I felt like Carl McCalla did a good job...although he seemed to be unclear in a couple of issues, like release dates and what will be included in them. He was very good about getting back to us, though, with the questions that we had when he didn't have the answers at first.

-

Q#006: 4=useful

It was good to rehash some stuff I was already familiar with as well as seeing what was coming down in the future. It also finally put to rest what the difference between RPP and RAP was!

-

Q#006: 4=useful

For me...it was nice to have all the "acronyms" defined in relation to one another.

-

Q#006: 4=useful

This was a useful clearing house of GFE Info to bring back a semi-official plan for briefing the local offices.

-

Q#006: 3=adequate

It was useful to get historical context
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

8: Riding the IFPS/GFE into the Future of Forecasting with Lynn Maximuk

N=43, mean=4.1, std=0.9, min=1, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[1] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[9] 3=adequate

[15] 4=useful

[18] 5=very useful
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

9: Comments
 

Q#008: 5=very useful

I was actually encouraged by what Lynn had to say. In the field offices there can be a lot of negativism toward IFPS/GFE and what it will do to our jobs. The message I got from his presentation was that there is plenty for us to do in making this data available to the public.

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

Most of the talk was new to me so it interesting to hear about the future of the NWS and how the GFESuite and the NDFD could work in the future.

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

This should be given to MIC's, SOO's, Regional personnel, and WSH personnel, so everyone is "on board".

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

An exceptional presentation. It was a real eye opener. We hope to use some of his ideas here locally. I would recommend everyone seeing it.

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn's presentation showed one method of getting IFPS operational at a WFO. Much of what he said was helpful, but I question a lot of his practices for use in a large domain area like AFC. His talk did, however, get people talking and thinking about methodology and implementation of IFPS at an office, which is very important.

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

Although I do not agree with some of the opinions expressed during this presentation, I thought that it was very useful because it was pro-active and made me think.

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

Again...this was a much needed talk about the future of the weather service. Too many forecasters do not yet realize that time is short and we need to drastically revise our entire forecast process if we are to survive as a viable agency in the near future. The future is now!!!

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn Maximuk's presentation should be required for all NWS employees.

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

Lynn was right--his presentation did spark a lot of controversy, but it also got a lot of good conversation going too. Even though our office is a year and a half into using GFE/IFPS now, there are still some older ways of thinking/things we need to break free of before we can be considered "fully spun-up".

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

It's always great to see what other offices are doing!

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

It is very useful to hear how this is being used in an operational setting. It allowed me to envision how this is all going to come together in the future.

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

Provided a realistic vision into how IFPS could be manifest. Could have used 15 more minutes.

-

Q#008: 5=very useful

The lecture was very useful, giving insight to what direction the National level of the Weather Service is headed and how they view GFE/IFPS

-

Q#008: 4=useful

It was helpful to see what Lynn thought of the process being an RPP site that has worked through a lot of the tough issues already. I wish he had marine responsibility also since this adds a whole other set of problems to the mix. Perhaps getting the perspective of an RPP site with marine would be even more helpful.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

A lot of repeat from the audio tele-training that we went through on-station, but it was nice being able to ask questions.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

I brought back some good ideas for our office to try.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

I liked what Lynn had to say. I thought it was interesting that statistically we are only beating the models 12 hours out. I did an informal poll of the group and found that many offices are using their HMTs for the near-term forecast period out to either 6 or 12 hours. It seems odd that we are using HMTs to create forecasts for the only period of time when we can statistically beat the models. Shouldn't we have our Forecasters doing that time range since it is the only period where we can really make a difference? This seems very strange to me.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

Didn't agree with everything, but much of what Lynn presented is likely close to reality.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

Eye opening.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

Found it to be forward thinking. Makes sense as a general blueprint of the IFPS program's future.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

Lynn (and others who make this presentation) need to be more receptive to comments/suggestions. Often, management seems to "blow off" suggested needs from the field - those who really use the software every day.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

Lynn brought up good points, ones that require some thinking and possible forecast shift strategy.

-

Q#008: 4=useful

Again, good information, but had heard most of it before.

-

Q#008: 3=adequate

What Lynn had to say was insightful, but I believe a little naive when it comes to mountain GFE methodology/philosophy, especially regarding temp verification off of several points (works well I suppose if the world is flat where you work). Also, the shift overlapping philosophy will likely not be necessary at some offices. ISC also probably is quite simple in his flatland area than it will be out west. All in all, though, his lecture was good.

-

Q#008: 3=adequate

Having worked at EAX during the early stages of IFPS (pre-GFE), I was familiar with the direction Mr. Maximuk was taking the audience at the workshop. I did, however, appreciate the newer methodologies, etc...that Lynn mentioned regarding the future of forecasting with IFPS. I hope to be able to convey this view to the local staff in the near future.

-

Q#008: 3=adequate

There was probably a lot of truth to some of the things put forward in this session. It definitely came across as "ivory towerish" at times...and the suggestions will take a lot more work than was let on.

-

Q#008: 3=adequate

As focal point... I feel that I am already "sold" on the movement toward using the GFE for creating gridded forecasts. I do not believe I needed a pep talk on why we need to go toward gridded forecasts. However... I did like the time that was spent talking about how the Pleasant Hill staff was switching their mind-set to deal with the changes.

-

Q#008: 3=adequate

Some forecaster remain skeptical and only seeing the results of the NDFD in use will change that.

-

Q#008: 1=not useful

The workshop was one of the best training sessions I have attended in 23 years of working for the NWS. However, this particular session was NOT USEFUL. Attendees at the workshop were focal points, or office leaders in IFPS, and we already had a keen interest in learning about the GFE/IFPS system. We did not need a "pep talk"from Mr. Maximuk. Most of Mr. Maximuk's comments were way, way, way out of line. For instance, the Weather Channel did NOT fire us! We were NEVER hired by them, so how could they fire us! (This is just a bunch of old "Central Region Augulis-like" rhetoric that needs to be canned! It is totally off base!!) The word is, we engage in partnerships with the private sector. No one hires or fires anybody. We collaborate and share weather information with the private sector. Mr. Maximuk needs to terminate his rhetoric. I was disgusted and infuriated with most of his remarks! Do not invite him back if he continues to insist on giving this same lecture. This session would have been much better if he would have discussed issues such as: scheduling, and how to accomplish the daily tasks using the GFE as an operational tool at our offices, AS WE ARE OR SOON WILL BE DOING!! (After all he is the MIC and should have some idea how this is accomplished at his office.) How to motivate and train office forecasters in the GFE. Steps his office has taken to accomplish these goals. Problems and solutions that arose because of these issues. How to incorporate HMT's into the GFE process. This would have been much more informative than having Mr. Maximuk ramble on with his antiquated rhetoric!!
 

10: Which Track did you participate in during the Workshop?
 

N=41, mean=1.5, std=0.5, min=1, max=2

[0] 0=no answer

[22] 1=Track A

[19] 2=Track B
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

11: The Two-Track Schedule was designed in order to accommodate the large number of attendees. Please rate the effectiveness of the Two-Track training strategy.
 

N=43, mean=4.7, std=0.6, min=3, max=5
 

[0] 0=no answer

[0] 1=not effective

[0] 2=somewhat effective

[2] 3=adequate

[11] 4=effective

[30] 5=very effective
 
 
 

12: Comments
 

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

This was very helpful in getting hands on training with such a large group.

-

Q#011: 3=adequate

Q#010:

I liked the one person per workstation labs...made possible by the two track schedule. Not sharing a workstation allowed me to proceed at my own pace which was more effective for me.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

Very good. The only thing that would have kept it from being effective is poor organization... and it was organized very well.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

The two-track strategy was a very good idea. It limited the sizes of the individual sessions while allowing a large number of folks to attend.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

Great idea, and implemented quite effectively.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

It was very organized and did NOT upset the flow of learning. It was the perfect solution to our condensed schedule.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

It worked as intended...to allow more attendees. I think the more attendees the better. The field is starving for more of this type of training.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

Very effective, with a lot of lab time for each attendee. Lab time was much more effective than lecture, but the lectures were very informative as well.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

The NWSTC should do this. It was great to have a machine of my own for each lab.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

It was something that had to be done and you all did an excellent job with!

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

I was fine with it. It was a good way to manage a limited amount of space. It allowed a larger group to attend, which is a good thing...otherwise you'd probably have to do another one of these workshops to accommodate everyone.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

I work very closely with the focal point at a neighboring WFO. It would have been helpful to have been assigned to the same track as him.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

It allowed you to double the size of the attending workshop members. The more people you can get through a class like this, the better off we will be in the field.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

This strategy was very effective...with little or no negative consequences. If you ever have another workshop like this...I would recommend keeping this idea intact.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

The two-track schedule gave a larger number of people to attend the workshop. Without this planning... as an RFC employee I believe I would not have been able to attend the workshop... because my attending the workshop would not have been of highest priority.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

I thought the 2 track system was an excellent use of limited resources. It kept the class size manageable and allowed for a good deal of individual attention.

-

Q#011: 5=very effective

Q#010: 2=Track B

I think that by doing this in two tracks...the lab sessions were a better learning experience.

-

Q#011: 4=effective

Q#010: 1=Track A

Smaller class track size was appreciated.

-

Q#011: 3=adequate

Q#010:

I liked the one person per workstation labs...made possible by the two track schedule. Not sharing a workstation allowed me to proceed at my own pace which was more effective for me.
 

13: Rate the overall usefulness of the following lectures you received:
 

Python and Numerical Python Lecture and Lab

N=43, mean=4.5, std=0.7, min=3, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[4] 3=adequate

[15] 4=useful

[24] 5=very useful
 
 
 
 
 

14: Comments
 

Q#013: 5=very useful

This lecture was a good introduction to python and numerical python. I definitely believe that getting "hands-on" experience with the scripting language was of big help to everyone. This also cleared up any questions I had about the difference between the two.

-

Q#013: 5=very useful

This lecture cleared up many of the gray areas that I had with learning Python/Numeric Python on the job. It also confirmed many of the ideas that I have formulated but have not been able to talk with other experienced programmers about.

-

Q#013: 5=very useful

This was a very good "hands on" introduction to Python programming.

-

Q#013: 5=very useful

There are not a lot of numeric python resources available, so this was an extremely useful lecture. Would have liked even more time devoted to this.

-

Q#013: 5=very useful

I am not familiar with Python... except to be intimidated by it when I look at it. I found the labs very useful, and I'm sure they would have been more so, if I had prepared ahead of time (as asked!)

-

Q#013: 5=very useful

Whereas I was already pretty familiar with the basics of Python, the Numerical Python lecture and lab was highly useful. I am still a beginner at it, but it cleared up a lot of concerns/questions I had before the course.

-

Q#013: 5=very useful

I would recommend trying to mold the lab to more like the Smart Init and ifpImage labs. For example, some of the participants where not Python savvy so they struggled through the code. It might work better to create a new smart tool, and describe the steps taken to get to a working solution.

-

Q#013: 5=very useful

Resolved to concepts I had been struggling with...numeric weather...and use of sounding data in smart tools.

-

Q#013: 5=very useful

I started with absolutely no prior knowledge of Python. By the end, I was confident that I would be at least able to modify an existing Smart Tool. I would recommend more time allowed for the lab in the future, as this is when I felt I was able to make the most progress. If I remember correctly, very few in the lab were able to come close to finishing the exercises.

-

Q#013: 4=useful

It was nice to get a basic knowledge of python scripting. Using examples that directly related to what one is going to do in the IFPS world was particularly helpful as it assisted in learning the GFE architecture as well.

-

Q#013: 4=useful

I always thought python was a confusing language, even though some people think it's easy...so I welcome any opportunity for python training. However, a lot of what was taught was pretty basic - more advanced stuff would've been better. I've seen some smart tools that have complex python code...I wish I could write something like that!.

-

Q#013: 4=useful

Not enough time to complete labs, which was understandable.

-

Q#013: 4=useful

I'm not a real great computer guy but I did understand some of the more basic stuff.

-

Q#013: 4=useful

Useful for those who will develop smart tools, but not all of the focal points will have the time to go down that path.

-

Q#013: 4=useful

Not knowing python, I thought the lecture/lab gave a good overview of some of the topics used in smart tool development.

-

Q#013: 4=useful

The Python portion of the session was very valuable.

-

Q#013: 3=adequate

A more indepth look at Python and Numerical Python would have been better instead of just going through the information that is used in Smart Tools. Allowing more time in the lab would also allow people to become more comfortable with the language especially to non-programmers.

-

Q#013: 3=adequate

Alas, Mark, even though I tried, I am STILL not a python programmer after the workshop and labs were over. Seriously, the overview by Tom was very good, however, after about the middle section it was moving at way too fast of a clip for someone such as I (probably way too slow for those slick pythoners that were in the audience!

-

Q#013: 3=adequate

I am not a proficient programmer, so I struggled a bit.
 

15: The Python Lab was conducted as a self-paced exercise, while the Numerical Python was presented in a group tutorial session. Of these two training methods, which do you prefer?
 

N=42

[5] 0=no answer

[22] 1=self-paced method

[15] 2=group method
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

16: Comments
 

Q#015: 2=group method

Covered more material with the group method.

-

Q#015: 2=group method

Personally the group method was personally preferred.

-

Q#015: 2=group method

The Group method is preferred so all the members of the group can be on the same page and not try to rush to catch up.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

I prefer a self-paced method, but it was kind of difficult to keep the class on the same page as there are many different ability levels and speeds in the class.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

I've always worked better at my own pace.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

I think that in fear of losing interest of attendees who already had advanced python skills (and who might finish labs too early), the rapid pace of the exercises, in general, left a larger portion of novice attendees with a fragmented training experience and less than functional python scripting knowledge/skills.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

Although the time allotted for the workshop was limited, the self-paced method worked well for me to get a handle on using the python language, especially in the diagnosis of errors and reasoning behind specific smart tools, etc. The makeup of the GFE Training Workshop Binder was useful in the fact that the exercises completed and/or partially completed at the workshop could be duplicated at each F.P. home office.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

I actually liked both methods.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

It was nice to be able to go at a slow pace when it came to this subject! I certainly learned a lot more going at it slower.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

Not everyone is a programmer by trade. I had taken programming classes in college and my progression is slower than an individual who programs everyday.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

Whichever one was in the lab I liked better--I think it was the self-paced method. Time just seemed to go quicker there and I was able to try the new stuff out right away.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

The self-paced method allows someone to spend more time on the things that they are struggling with as opposed to something that they already understand.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

better hands-on experience for experimenting

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

The self-paced labs allowed everyone to work at their own pace. Those that were advanced could work ahead on several labs... while those who needed to focus more on the basics could spend more time on these exercises. This worked out perfectly... while still having the instructors available for help.

-

Q#015: 1=self-paced method

Self paced allowed a more hands on feel and gave more flexibility to get things right...although the pace slowed due to the differing levels of experience. It did allow the faster group to explore and experiment with topics that were not listed in the workbook.

-

Q#015: 0=no answer

Both ways seemed effective to me.

-

Q#015: 0=no answer

No preference.

-

Q#015: 0=no answer

I think the group method was good for the Numerical Python section, and the individual method was good for the Smart Tools section as it allowed individual exploration, and it would have taken forever to finish otherwise.

-

Q#015: 0=no answer

They both worked well. Perhaps group tutorial followed by self paced training exercises would be ideal.

-

Q#015: 0=no answer

I liked both methods
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

17: Smart Tools I, II, and III Lectures and Labs
 

N=43, mean=4.6, std=0.7, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[1] 3=adequate

[12] 4=useful

[29] 5=very useful
 

18: Comments
 

Q#017: 5=very useful

I was not looking forward to this portion of the workshop at all. It turned out to be very helpful and not nearly as painful as I anticipated. I think this is a result of the top notch job that Tracy did during her lectures.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

Cleared up a lot of the syntax with smart tools, and provided a good idea of what can be accomplished with smart tools

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

Smart tools are critical to local GFE implementation. This was the most valuable portion of the workshop in my opinion.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

With thanks to the previous attendees of the GFE Workshops and the dedication of the FSL staff, the focus on the Smart Tool Lectures and Labs were well worth the time. The only thing I would have appreciated more was a more in depth discussion on the Analysis methods in the Smart Script Library. Also, if the FSL folks had any preference on good commercial C++ and/or Python texts, that also would have served as a good presentation slide or handout.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

Explaining the smart tool template was vital for me to understand how to approach writing tools. It was great to have access to the experts in order to answer questions as they arose.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

Again--the basics of SmartTools I had down, but the more advanced concepts presented in II and III were very useful.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

Again, I would only recommend more dedicated lab time. I learned the most by doing, and being able to ask an expert whenever I didn't understand something.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

great look at the GFESuite architecture and configuration schemes

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

Very good presentation. Again... gave a good foundation for going back to the field office to improve our GFE. Several tips and other information have already been implemented at our office.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

This was a basic review for me, since I have been working with Pablo Santos and Charlie Paxton and Tracey Hansen since I became the GFE focal point at BRO.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

I need more of this but it was a good start.

-

Q#017: 5=very useful

We do not use these as well as we should. I plan to do much more with the smart tools in the future...because of this training.

-

Q#017: 4=useful

I felt more information about various techniques to write a smart tool could have been given and more time in the lab to finish the given exercises.

-

Q#017: 4=useful

The labs were a little too long...couldn't finish everything. But it is an important topic.

-

Q#017: 4=useful

At least I now know what the vardict is for :-).
 

Q#017: 4=useful

Thought of several new tools during these sessions.

-

Q#017: 4=useful

Excellent mix of lecture and lab.

-

Q#017: 3=adequate

I would have preferred a more basic approach, but I realize there were many "experts". Possibly the tracks could be separated into "python programming ability" and have a more basic lab, and a more expert lab.

-

Q#017: 2=of little use

Smart tools should be put into their own class. I am not interested in smart tools and do not plan on creating them. Something should be created so that those forecasters who want to learn in depth about smart tools can. I just plan on letting other people create them...and if they are useful

download them. I am putting my efforts in other parts of IFPS.
 
 
 

19: ifpIMAGE and Other Programs Lecture

N=42, mean=4.1, std=0.6, min=3, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[7] 3=adequate

[25] 4=useful

[10] 5=very useful
 
 
 

20: Comments

Q#018: 5=very useful

The useful part for me isn't ifpIMAGE, since I'm kind of familiar with that, but the other programs which I'm not familiar with.

-

Q#018: 5=very useful

Again...everything in this course was very useful to me. This tied up some "loose ends" about png image generation.

-

Q#018: 5=very useful

Had no idea of the "extra" tools out there. Have already been using things like ifpServerStats and moveGFEData.

-

Q#018: 4=useful

This was already set up at our office by someone else, but it provided a good overview for me with some helpful suggestions. The program seems to be very well written and user friendly.

-

Q#018: 4=useful

I believe we will find the changes being implemented in future build very helpful.

-

Q#018: 4=useful

Most of ifpIMAGE was a review, but I didn't know much about the other GFE programs so it was good to have an overview of these secondary programs.

-

Q#018: 4=useful

The time allotted to the class could be shortened or a separate lab could be included with it.

-

Q#018: 4=useful

I was exposed to many more features/options of ifpImage than I was aware existed. I was able to implement some things I learned ASAP upon coming back to my station.

-

Q#018: 4=useful

I thought this was a good overview of what is available in the GFESuite and what is coming up in upcoming builds. The moveGFEData will especially be useful to those of us sites that are utilizing both RPP and AWIPS GFEs. Good job.

-

Q#018: 4=useful

Good information, but did not have time to do much in the lab.

-

Q#018: 4=useful

I did not know that you could create a command image file for creating weather element images. This has now saved me a lot of time as I do not have to edit 20 separate files... only 2. Thank you very much. Also... learning about the other new and old programs gave me a lot of knowledge. I now know how to back up and re-install the forecast database to ensure it will not be lost during localizations (have already tried this at our office). Also... having a new method to copy smart tools will be very helpful. I did not know about the meta-file that was created... and was copying smart tools all wrong (no wonder some of them didn't work!).

-

Q#018: 4=useful

Another reinforcing lecture on things that I have learned by trial and error. Useful to give me confidence with creating and modifying the workings of GFE.

-

Q#018: 3=adequate

ifpIMAGE rehashed what I already learned from digging through stuff on the web, but going over the other programs was useful in letting us know what was out there and better ways of doing stuff.

-

Q#018: 3=adequate

Once we have these set up I don't mess with them.

-

Q#018: 3=adequate

I had already worked with some of these programs... and didn't really need the content that was presented.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

21: GFESuite Configuration Lecture/Lab
 

N=43, mean=4.4, std=0.6, min=3, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[2] 3=adequate

[20] 4=useful

[21] 5=very useful
 
 
 

22: Comments
 

Q#021: 5=very useful

We do some general configuration adjustments at LMK...I feel much more comfortable about doing this now.

-

Q#021: 5=very useful

Thanks for this one. Answered a few questions I had.

-

Q#021: 5=very useful

Good stuff. The handouts were appreciated.

-

Q#021: 5=very useful

Mark did a really good job with this lecture. I thought the lab was insightful as well, having some built-in mistakes was a great idea :-)

-

Q#021: 4=useful

I actually wonder if this may be expanded? Configuration is a major hurdle to many offices.

-

Q#021: 4=useful

I thought we were supposed to know this already before we attended the course but I still managed to take a few notes. I am glad not too much time was spent on the topic so we could cover a lot of new ground.

-

Q#021: 4=useful

Again, reinforced the concepts and practices that we are using at BRO.

-

Q#021: 4=useful

I was already quite familiar with GFE configuration, but I did learn a few things I was unaware of.

-

Q#021: 4=useful

More lab time on configuration and more information on which attributes on the GFESuite can be modified could have been included.

-

Q#021: 4=useful

One of the more important aspects of the software, in my opinion. Wish it could have been hit harder. I still don't feel very comfortable with it, but certainly know more than before.

-

Q#021: 4=useful

I learned how to complete a 'true' localization using the localConfig file instead of editing the serverConfig file (which I know was a definite no-no!). Numerous changes have been made to our system since I have returned... which will save localizations when an upgrade is completed.

-

Q#021: 3=adequate

This part of the course, I think, was of more use for those WR and PR offices that are just now spinning up on IFPS. This would have been more useful to me personally about a year or two ago. But still--it brought the focal points into more parity with each other which was a positive aspect.

-

Q#021: 3=adequate

An important topic, but that's the area of GFE that I'm personally the most familiar with, so I didn't learn as much as with the other topics.
 
 
 

23: Smart Initialization Lecture and Lab

N=42, mean=4.1, std=0.9, min=2, max=5
 

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[10] 3=adequate

[13] 4=useful

[18] 5=very useful
 
 
 
 
 

24: Comments
 

Q#023: 5=very useful

This was extremely useful to me...we have not done any smart initialization up to now...but we are going to do some now...we want to get mm5 data into our awips.

-

Q#023: 5=very useful

The lab was useful, but I would also like to see more "real" examples on how to use smart init.

-

Q#023: 5=very useful

This is something that I had not yet experimented with, and I now feel more comfortable in trying some local configuration.

-

Q#023: 5=very useful

Excellent. I never knew that you could "ignore" certain runs of a model or forecast. I needed a way to not initialize with any QPF except the 12z data. After learning this... I added this to our GFE. Also... I created an initialization that overrode the HPC QPF by using our local QPF. It is now done correctly and working perfectly.

-

Q#023: 5=very useful

This section will prove timely as I will likely be installing ETA12 during the next month to the IFPS database.

-

Q#023: 5=very useful

The Smart Init Lab was the second best Lab we had. I learned a lot my going through the step my step instructions. I really didn't have to think of how too much about the Python code.

-

Q#023: 5=very useful

Smart initialization was another topic I had been having a hard time understanding until the lab.

-

Q#023: 4=useful

I don't know how much of these we will be doing but its good to know what is possible.

-

Q#023: 4=useful

I think Smart Initialization offers much promise in forecasting in the IFPS/GFE era. The lab exercises were helpful in showing the steps involved for developing a smart init element and adding a local model to GFE.

-

Q#023: 4=useful

The Lab seemed rushed.

-

Q#023: 4=useful

Important. However, I didn't learn much more than I already knew...but that's because I've dealt with Smart Init before.

-

Q#023: 3=adequate

Mike Romberg talked very fast, and it was a little hard to concentrate on what he was saying.

-
 

Q#023: 3=adequate

I would have preferred more information on this topic including background/big picture.

-

Q#023: 3=adequate

This seemed more suited for an office SOO.

-

Q#023: 3=adequate

Smart Init will probably always seem confusing to me. However, the idea on how to do it (roughly) was covered well by Mike.

-

Q#023: 3=adequate

I tend to rate the parts of the course based on how useful they would be at our office. At this time, I did not see the immediate benefits of Smart Initialization--as in departing from what was already there, but that may have been my fault.

-

Q#023: 3=adequate

Smart Init is still a confusing concept. Perhaps a few more "real time" demonstrations would be helpful, particularly for those offices that do not have terrain. May also be helpful to start with more of the broad picture for those offices that do not yet use Smart Init in their office.

-

Q#023: 2=of little use

Personally I didn't see how/why I would use this.
 
 
 

25: Text Product Infrastructure Lecture
 

N=43, mean=4.1, std=0.8, min=2, max=5
 

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[8] 3=adequate

[20] 4=useful

[14] 5=very useful
 
 
 

26: Comments
 

Q#025: 5=very useful

With major changes coming, I was glad to be exposed to the format. We plan to use GFE Formatters as soon as they are stable in development.
 

-

Q#025: 5=very useful

I cannot wait to begin this in our office. I look forward to the ongoing work of the Local Formatter Development Team.

-

Q#025: 5=very useful

Looking forward to the release date!

-

Q#025: 5=very useful

Very interested in using the FSL formatters. The MDL formatters force you to open a ticket to MDL for resolution, and still have bugs. The FSL formatters seem to be more user friendly.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

A lot of offices are working toward generating text products from the GFE, and I would have liked to have more time devoted to this topic.. including maybe even a small exercise.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

I was concerned about the next change in the product generation infrastructure, but my concerns were relieved. Also had a chance to glance at the formatters and get a better idea on the methods used.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

I think a lab exercise on text formatters would have been very useful.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

The baby shower behind the false wall made it very hard to hear. I did appreciate the overview though... and the fact that it was generalized and quick didn't bother me at all - it was good to know what is coming.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

I was pleased with this section, but I doubt that I will not be able to wait too long to institute some local GFE formatters on station. (Per recommendation of local SOO). However, I will be looking forward to the new capabilities with the text formatters early in 2003.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

Already had some knowledge coming in because I had set up formatters locally. But it was very useful for the concept to be explained. A little frustrating because we have 10.4, so I'll have to wait for 12 before I know if the bugs I have experienced have been worked out.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

Tracy did an excellent job with this. FSL formatters are the wave of the future, and as IFPS FPs, we all need to be aware as to what is available out there, how the formatters basically work and how to configure them. I was glad to hear that local configurations will become much easier with the next generation of formatters coming with RPP19!!

-

Q#025: 4=useful

Good to know what's going on with that, since everyone's main focus right now seems to be getting the text formatters to function perfectly.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

Since we do not use this function at the RFC... I have not implemented any changes from this lecture. However... it was good to be introduced to this area while also being given a timeline of "completion" of these formatters.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

Like everyone waiting to see FSL formatters.

-

Q#025: 4=useful

We do not as yet use the FSL text formatters...but...after the text product lecture.. I think that I will look in to using some of them in the 11.3 load or later.

-

Q#025: 3=adequate

A Lab on how to create or modify your own text products was missing.

-

Q#025: 3=adequate

I still have a lot of questions about the text product generation and where we are heading with it. Maybe I just did not have the background knowledge in this area to keep up.

-

Q#025: 3=adequate

This was something I first became interested in after the Spring 2002 RPP Workshop when one of the attendees mentioned it on the IFPS listserver. I then emailed him some questions, he responded, and I was hooked on GFE text products from that point on! So I knew a lot more than most of the attendees there on text formatters, but that was thanks to your previous workshop! :-) To the rest of the group, I would say it was very useful. There was a lot of interest on this after the lecture.

-

Q#025: 2=of little use

Appeared aimed at RAP/RPP sites
 
 
 

27: What's New with GFESuite Discussion
 

N=43, mean=4.3, std=0.7, min=3, max=5
 

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[7] 3=adequate

[17] 4=useful

[19] 5=very useful
 
 
 
 
 

28: Comments
 

Q#027: 5=very useful

Not to appear boring...but everything in this workshop was very...very beneficial for me.

-

Q#027: 5=very useful

It was nice to see how receptive FSL is with ideas and suggestions from the field. I felt as if we were very much involved in the development process and supported by FSL.

-

Q#027: 5=very useful

Good chance to talk with developers and provide input into what we don't use in the GFE, and what features we would like to see in future builds.

-

Q#027: 5=very useful

I liked the interaction that developed in this discussion... it was easy to bring up issues, especially because the developers are so open to changing things or just hearing ideas.

-

Q#027: 5=very useful

Very much like the new streamline wind tool.

-

Q#027: 5=very useful

Thought the streamline tool demo was slick. Need to get the word out to my forecasters that it is available and how to use it.

-

Q#027: 5=very useful

Good to see what's new and exciting with GFE. And the discussion allowed everyone to suggest even better improvements.

-

Q#027: 4=useful

Looks like some very useful changes are coming.

-

Q#027: 4=useful

Didn't get much out of this.

-

Q#027: 4=useful

This section could have been given more time as a lot of suggestions on how to improve the GFESuite was given until time ran out.

-

Q#027: 4=useful

The discussions were great. They allowed the developers a chance to hear what we (the forecasters) need and want from the system.

-

Q#027: 4=useful

A good lecture in seeing what was "coming down the pike".

-

Q#027: 4=useful

I did not know all the new functions available with the newer versions of the GFE (as we were running on RPP 14). After upgrading to RPP 18... I was able to use these new functions with little if any problems. Also... letting the group let FSL know about what we would like changed was good. It shows an interest in building a tool usable by a forecaster... not just configured for the builder.

-

Q#027: 3=adequate

I knew much of the new build information for RPP19 and am looking forward to installing it.

-

Q#027: 3=adequate

Really wasn't a lot new here for myself personally.
 
 
 

29: GFESuite Configuration and ifpIMAGE Lab
 

N=42, mean=4.3, std=0.7, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[2] 3=adequate

[24] 4=useful

[15] 5=very useful
 
 
 

30: Comments
 

Q#029: 5=very useful

All labs were useful to me.

-

Q#029: 5=very useful

See comments on GFESuite Config lecture section. ifpIMAGE lab was also good.

-

Q#029: 5=very useful

I would have liked more time to finish this lab. Mark Mathewson told me he might try to make this lab available to us. This would sure be helpful.

-

Q#029: 5=very useful

The ifpImage Lab was by far the best lab we had. It was really fun finding all the gotchas. I learned more in this lab than I've learned in months of sifting through the documentation -- kudos to the training team.

-

Q#029: 5=very useful

Enjoyed the hands on troubleshooting with the problems that you created with our test systems.

-

Q#029: 5=very useful

Hands on is good.

-

Q#029: 4=useful

This trouble shooting lab helped me look for problems in the configuration files. Will definitely be a help when I have problems locally.

-

Q#029: 4=useful

The ifpImage part of the Lab was not done due to time constraints on Lab Time. The Configuration Lab should have more to it than a few exercises and more time to go through it.

-

Q#029: 4=useful

I wonder if the group method could work better here?

-

Q#029: 4=useful

The lab still managed to bring up some good points even though we should have known most of the configuration information already.

-

Q#029: 4=useful

I wonder if the group method could work better here?

-

Q#029: 4=useful

Answered lots of questions.

-

Q#029: 3=adequate

This would have been more useful to me about a year or two ago, since this has already been done at our site and it is just a matter of keeping up with the new stuff as it is developed. But for the other folks who are just spinning up (namely WR, AR and PR offices) it was a good lab.

-

Q#029: 3=adequate

A useful topic, but that's the area of GFE that I'm already pretty familiar with.

-

Q#029: 2=of little use

Pretty much knew the material being presented. The lab would have been very useful had I had it BEFORE working my way through the topics at my office in a trial and error fashion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

31: Intersite Coordination of Grids Lab and Demo
 

N=43, mean=4.4, std=0.7, min=2, max=5
 

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[3] 3=adequate

[16] 4=useful

[23] 5=very useful
 
 
 
 
 

32: Comments
 

Q#031: 5=very useful

This is an area that I have no experience. I thought the demo and explanation were clear and concise. This session help me to see the value of ISC and how things work together.

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

Again once this is set up I don't know how much will be tinkering.

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

This was and is a very useful part of the GFE forecast process...even more so now with the national digital forecast data base becoming a reality.

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

This lab was set up with sufficient time to fairly successfully convey the important concepts that the presenter wanted to convey.

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

Was glad to get some first time usage of ISC. A bit overwhelming at first.

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

This was an enjoyable lab too. It opened our eyes to the potential pitfalls of collaboration. A good set of tools is all we need, and ISC is a good start.

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

I see a lot of potential usefulness using ISC to create a seamless product. This section showed me plenty of features that I didn't know existed, and ways to use them for the benefit of multiple offices.

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

Prior to this, I had no clue how to set up discrepancy areas and to put the ISC to good use. It was sure an eyeopener as to how different grids are going to be from one office to another...especially at 2.5 km resolutions. How exactly we will use ISC to coordinate several hundred grid elements each shift remains a mystery to me, though!

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

Great lab. It gave me an excellent feel for how ISC works.

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

Demo of this new feature was extremely beneficial

-

Q#031: 5=very useful

This is going to be such a HUGE part of what we do in the next year or two that more needs to be said on this. It is no longer not enough to just do your forecast and print out of the products, but also make sure we agree with all of our neighbors. We need more info on perhaps best practices, good times to collaborate, and more tools on ISC (namely the release to the field of FX-Collaborate or other software).

-

Q#031: 4=useful

This was very helpful. Streamlining the process would be very helpful as there is a lot of clicking and a lot of steps just to view where the discrepancies exist. It will be interesting to see how this works in real time.

-

Q#031: 4=useful

Found the lab useful in setting up ISC back at my home office.

-

Q#031: 4=useful

The implementation of the ISC was a little confusing and this cleared things up.

-

Q#031: 4=useful

Much of this I already knew, and have used.-
 

Q#031: 4=useful

I have been completing this at work already. It was useful.-
 

Q#031: 4=useful

Would prefer this in the 2-track system. Everyone at one was a bit crowded.

-

Q#031: 4=useful

It was nice to see how the smart tools for this worked. We hadn't really used these much at the office yet.

-

Q#031: 4=useful

Being at an RFC... we do not have ISC set up on our Linux box. However... I learned a lot about all the functions of ISC. Definitely helpful... and will be useful down the road if/when the RFC start using the GFE operationally.

-

Q#031: 3=adequate

I think separating the lecture and lab would have been more effective.

-

Q#031: 3=adequate

It was good for me to see it in action, since I'd never used it before. However, since both tracks were in there at once, the person I shared the workstation with wasn't really sharing.

-

Q#031: 2=of little use

Again, our WFO has progressed to the point where the material being presented was too basic.
 
 
 

33: FX-Collaborate Demo
 

N=42, mean=3.3, std=0.9, min=2, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[7] 2=of little use

[18] 3=adequate

[13] 4=useful

[4] 5=very useful
 
 
 

34: Comments
 

Q#033: 5=very useful

Very good to see this software and what we might be dealing with in the future.

-

Q#033: 4=useful

It would have been neat to actually coordinate with other students through the software.

-

Q#033: 4=useful

Software glitches downplayed the program's effectiveness. Would have been more excited if we knew exactly if this software or portions of the software were definitely going to be included in an upcoming IFPS build.

-

Q#033: 4=useful

Not necessary

-

Q#033: 4=useful

Looks like a great program, very useful if adopted.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

OK demo I guess.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

It went a bit slowly. The speakers did make good points regarding the usefulness of this tool in coordinating, when personality differences between forecasters are an issue. Otherwise, it could have been much shorter.

-

Q#033: 4=useful

Wish we had an FX-Collaborate just for it's display capabilities...it would be an excellent in-house tool for fcst discussions, and might be nice for emergency manager interface.

-

Q#033: 4=useful

Too long

-

Q#033: 4=useful

Method seems to take too much time, but that may be due to the technical difficulties the presenters had.

-

Q#033: 4=useful

I look to the future to see what comes out to the site which are not currently using FX-collaborate.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

This session was too long.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

The demo didn't go real great. FX connect crashed shortly after the session started.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

Nice "wow" factor, but my opinion is that its just another distraction to stand in the way of the forecaster concentrating on making a good forecast. If it were to take the place of the AFD, that would be great. We seem to be layering more and more expectations on the forecasters, and nothing is being shed. Not to take anything away from the demo though. It was good.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

Will be interesting to see how something like this would work out west!

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

At times difficult to follow because the system wasn't always working right, but it was my first time seeing it, so it was useful. Don't know if we'll ever be using it, though...some of the old-fashioned forecasters may prefer sticking to using the phone.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

A little more in terms of real world demonstration would be helpful. It was difficult to get a feel for how this would work in the field with a real scenario. It was unfortunate that the equipment did not work as planned. I am still not thoroughly convinced that it would not be easier to just pick up the phone and call to coordinate, but I guess it just takes time to get used to the process.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

I don't know if this will be the answer to coordination/collaboration. The presentation was good... but I still feel a simple phone call will be able to be good enough in an operational setting. This may end up being a good training tool instead!

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

Too many unknowns regarding FX-Collaborate. This is still a big question mark in the GFE picture. It will not necessarily be a problem at BRO, since we only border with one CWA.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

Set-up difficulties experienced by presenters diminished the significance of FX-Collaborate.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

Given the discussion of bandwidth restrictions on the SBN, the presentation on F.C. was good, but too broad and impractical at this time. A discussion on concepts gained from current collaboration activities may have been more helpful. Hopefully , the AWIPS and NWSHQ folks will be open to allowing full use of F.C. in the near future. Our SOO would like to see some level of collaboration software available to the NWS offices as soon as possible.

-

Q#033: 3=adequate

At first glance it seems to be too cumbersome to use. BUT...I still have an open mind about it.

-

Q#033: 2=of little use

Not sure we will even get the software. What's the point?

-

Q#033: 2=of little use

Technical problems pretty much killed the demo. Otherwise, good info.

-

Q#033: 2=of little use

Since there remains substantial doubt as to the level that will be fielded within AWIPS, I am not sure that it was an efficient use of time.

-

Q#033: 2=of little use

This demo and software appeared to be a little lacking.

-

Q#033: 2=of little use

Not very useful since the demo didn't work on the computers. The chat software is the only part that will be used for the NDFD.
 

35: Please rate the Joint Discussions
 

N=43, mean=4.0, std=1.0, min=0, max=5
 

[1] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[1] 2=of little use

[6] 3=adequate

[23] 4=useful

[12] 5=very useful
 
 
 

36: Comments
 

Q#035: 5=very useful

It is always helpful getting "everyone's" ideas out in the open. It seems to be the only way to really get a good product.

-

Q#035: 5=very useful

It would have been good to have a different discussion between the focal points to compare where they are in the process and what worked and did not work for them with specific elements of GFE, scheduling, division of duties, etc.

-

Q#035: 5=very useful

It was great to learn how other offices were progressing and handling different issues (almost like having a "live" IFPS Infolist on hand).

-

Q#035: 5=very useful

It is always of great value to discuss things with other offices/regions.

-

Q#035: 4=useful

The discussions can be the best part of the training

-

Q#035: 4=useful

Great to be able to say what one thinks.

-

Q#035: 4=useful

Joint Discussions brought out some common problems and possible solutions.

-

Q#035: 4=useful

Useful for feedback to/from FSL

-

Q#035: 4=useful

A good open discussion on what we learned and have the questions we addressed in earlier sessions answered. A good way to close the session.

-

Q#035: 4=useful

I like joint discussions. I just wish I had something to contribute!

-

Q#035: 4=useful

Discussion is always good. However... I think nit-picking over little things that "bother" people when forecasting at their office adds little to the discussion. I think the discussion could have been led more toward how each office is applying the GFE/IFPS process at their office.

-

Q#035: 4=useful

this was ok for me...but some people seemed to get into some unnecessary details.

-

Q#035: 3=adequate

The discussions can be the best part of the training.

-

Q#035: 3=adequate

I guess this was what I expected it to be...for those who didn't ask their specific questions yet to ask them here.

-

Q#035: 2=of little use

Time could have been better spent in the lab. A lot of the stuff that was brought up in the Discussions was already talk about previously.
 
 
 

37: Please rate the Overall Training Pace
 

N=40, mean=3.3, std=0.6, min=2, max=5
 

[0] 0=no answer

[0] 1=too slow

[1] 2=somewhat slow

[27] 3=just right

[11] 4=somewhat fast

[1] 5=too fast
 
 
 

38: Comments
 

Q#037: 5=too fast

Training pace through lectures was great, but see comments below regarding time allocated for laboratory exercises.

-

Q#037: 4=somewhat fast

probably because I was a bit of a novice. Still...if I kept up...is was probably in the ballpark.

-

Q#037: 4=somewhat fast

Somewhat fast, but would have liked a bit more on the text formatters, like maybe a lab, to have a chance to dive more into the new structure.

-

Q#037: 4=somewhat fast

It seemed fast but I think it was better to be exposed to everything, and have to review it later, rather than learning a few things thoroughly.

-

Q#037: 4=somewhat fast

Some parts like the Smart Tools Lab could have been slowed down a little.

-

Q#037: 4=somewhat fast

More time was needed for the labs.

-

Q#037: 4=somewhat fast

Would have liked to have a little more time with smart tool labs, but since the answers were given, that wasn't crucial.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

I enjoyed the workshop very much. The training team did an excellent job in presenting all the material in such a small amount of time.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

Really...it was a good pace.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

Again, smart tool and python stuff ended up way to fast for me...but that's just from the vantage point of a non-programmer.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

Pace was fine in areas that I was familiar with, but was too fast in my "weak" areas, like python programming.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

Could have used a few more 10 minute breaks.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

Good job! Overall it was just right, but there were its slow parts and fast parts at times.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

I thought it was fine. I'm familiar enough with the GFE that I wasn't totally lost, but at the same time, there was enough that I still didn't know about it that I didn't find the workshop too slow and boring.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

Good pace... kept me interested the whole time. The week just flew by.

-

Q#037: 3=just right

It was very challenging to keep up the pace...but that is the way our forecast process seems to be going too. So a little stress was actually beneficial!!!
 
 
 

39: Please rate the usefulness of the Hands-On Laboratory Exercises
 

N=42, mean=4.6, std=0.6, min=3, max=5

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[3] 3=adequate

[12] 4=useful

[27] 5=very useful
 
 
 

40: Comments
 

Q#039: 5=very useful

I was impressed with how we each had our own workstation configured to our home WFO.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

There was not enough time for novice GFE focal points to sufficiently understand lab exercises. It was difficult to simply complete the labs - with instructor assistance -leaving not enough opportunity to functionally absorb important concepts, syntax, etc.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

Best labs were Smart Initialization and ifpImage. The ISC lab was very good too.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

I think a person learns more by actually doing what they are supposed to be learning instead of just sitting through lectures.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

Hands-on training is the best way to learn. It's great to have a chance to learn other than O-J-T.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

Personally, I liked the labs where you were literally walked through the whole process, rather than having to struggle with how to get there, especially considering the relatively fast-paced nature of the labs.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

These were GREAT!!!!!!!! Please make the ifpIMAGE lab available to us!!! Thank you!!

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

To me the hands-on was great. I was able to apply what I had not at the office due to the uncertainty of what would occur.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

Again, more time would be better.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

Probably the best part. Time went quicker and it was good to see what we learned in action!

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

One always learns better if actually doing the work

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

I enjoyed the hands-on lab. This allowed me to apply concepts just learned in a classroom setting. I think having classroom and then lab gave a good mix... which allowed the day to not become stale and just another 8 hour lecture.

-

Q#039: 5=very useful

These served to reinforce the lectures and help me to better understand just what the lectures were about.

-

Q#039: 3=adequate

They were helpful. It's always nice to be able to tinker without worrying about totally screwing up an operational system. However, there was not enough time to finish everything.

-

Q#039: 4=useful

The FSL staff was very helpful during the "Hands-On" Laboratory Exercises and took the time to help all of the participants who asked for assistance.

-

Q#039: 4=useful

All the exercises were very good.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

41: Please rate the usefulness of the Training Hand-Outs you received.
 

N=42, mean=4.3, std=0.6, min=3, max=5
 

[0] 0=did not attend

[0] 1=not useful

[0] 2=of little use

[3] 3=adequate

[22] 4=useful

[17] 5=very useful
 
 
 
 
 

42: Comments
 

Q#041: 5=very useful

I am a very strong believer on the value of printed hard copy for the total learning process. I am using mine now....and will continue to do so.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

The NWS should do whatever they can to assure this training program continues!

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

The comb binding on the handouts was great. It was nice not to have to haul around a 3 inch wide notebook. Consequently, I think I'll go back to the information more often, simply because it's easier to access. The information itself is great.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

Nice binder. Neat, professional and well done.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

Handouts with examples that we can replicate back at our offices are extremely useful.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

I am using it right now.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

Having the slides and training material in spiral binder is superb. A very nice training manual for use back in the office. Also having the PowerPoint presentations available for download is great too.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

Outstanding! Will be very useful.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

Great to reference.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

A great resource to review and refer to.

-

Q#041: 5=very useful

It is imperative to have references to fall back on.

-

Q#041: 4=useful

The book has helped tremendously at the office in just 1 week. Thank you for putting together a great reference source.

-

Q#041: 4=useful

I am sure I will put 'em to good use here at PSR!

-

Q#041: 3=adequate

It's always good to have something to refer back to after the workshop, but the problem with printing presentation slides is that they don't contain enough info. If one doesn't take enough notes (like me), one might not remember what the point of a slide might be.
 
 
 

43: Please list the aspects of training you found MOST useful.
 

Lynn Maximuk's talk , Smart Tools, Configuration

-

Lab exercises were very helpful.

-

GFESuite Configuration, Text Formatters, Smart Tools

-

Being able to ask questions of the FSL developers

-

Found everything useful.

-

Hands on practice was very helpful.

-

Smart tools lecture/lab and the smart init lab.

-

Lab exercises were the most useful for me... and I liked having both guided lab exercises and self-paced.

-

Joint discussions and Smart Tools were invaluable.

-

Smart Tools

-

Although I have commented negatively about the pace of lab exercise delivery, technical exposure to python in the labs was probably the best part of the training. Instructor's assistance in answering questions related to these labs was outstanding.

-

Hands on labs. Presentation by Lynn Maximuk on how his office IFPS process. GFE configuration

-

Smart Tools and Smart Initialization ifpImage

-

Numeric Python Lab, Smart Init.

-

Python, Smart Init, Text products and troubleshooting tools.

-

I REALLY enjoy the lecture/lab approach to learning and applying concepts. The instructors do a wonderful job -very informed and knowledgeable, willing to answer questions, etc.

-

Everything was very useful. Having the Python and numerical Python at the beginning of the course was helpful.

-

Smart tools Numerical Python Smart Init

-

Interaction with the developers. Letting them know what we want and need from the system.

-

Configuration topics and learning about new features and how to use them.

-

The labs...specifically for configuration and smart tools.

-

direct, hands-on working with initialization, smart tools, and configuration

-

Hands-on labs

-

The hands-on labs were excellent. They were set up very well by the lectures.

-

Python training and SMART TOOLS. Intersite Coordination.

-

On-hands

-

ISC, Python, and Configuration

-

Sections that discussed future features and enhancements. Also, the discussions relating changes that will be necessary in forecaster thought processes.

-

Smart Tools, Numerical Python, ISC, FX-Collaborate, and the future of GFESuite/IFPS as well as Lynn M.'s lecture.

-

I like the fact that we have labs. Makes it easier to understand and retain what you've learned. The fact that it's a workshop and not distance learning is a plus. I find it easier to learn if you have someone answer questions and solve problems in the labs.

-

Hands-on Labs were the most useful...as well as joint discussions.

-

Numeric Python

-

labs...discussions...handouts

-

To be honest... the whole class was excellent. Would not change much. I think a class just as it was would be good for everyone to attend (even though I know it isn't possible).

-

The guided laboratory and the hands on exercises helped me understand and experiment with features without damaging the system.

-

The hands on labs --getting started with smart tools and numeric python

-

I found EVERYTHING useful in this training...All the areas covered were critical for our forecast operations.
 

44: Please list the aspects of training you found LEAST useful.
 

IFPImage and Other Programs was not as helpful since we did not get very in depth due probably due to time constraints. I still felt as though I would have to do a lot of online searching to figure out how to set this up at my office. The programs seemed very user friendly so perhaps they just were not real in depth to begin with.

-

Smart Initialization

-

I thought all of the training was useful

-

FX-Collaborate and What's new with GFE.

-

Nothing comes to mind... the fx collaborate talk seemed a little too long.

-

The FX-Collaborate Demo.

-

FX-Collaborate

-

Text product FX-collaborate

-

FX-Collaborate

-

Joint discussions. Sometimes they got diverted into site specific problems.

-

FX-Collaborate

-

The FX-Collaborate demonstration did nor work well at all. Obviously, its cutting-edge applications, but please don't waste my time trying to show it to me if its not going to work.

-

Only having cookies at break time.

-

FX-collaborate

-

cant think of any.

-

Smarttools.

-

The joint discussion at the end.

-

text formatters and FX-collaborate, since their field usefulness is still far off.

-

Smart initialization, especially since we have little success with most of the algorithms in AZ, and they get kind of complicated when attempting to change them!

-

I got lost in some of the python programming sections.

-

Mr. Maximuk's antiquated Central Region tirade about who we are and what we do. He can leave that B.S. in K.C.

-

SMART Initialization ifpIMAGE

-

FX demo & most of the MDL input.

-

FX-Collaborate and text formatter overview

-

GFESuite configuration, ifpIMAGE and Smart Initialization. NOT necessarily because they weren't useful in an objective sense, but because the first two I already knew and the last item I couldn't see the immediate benefits of.

-

Maybe too much info to fit into a week. Those labs took a long time. Would've been better if we had a couple extra days.

-

IfpImage/ISC

-

fx-collaborate

-

None... except maybe the pep talk on the first day.

-

After a while the joint discussions became redundant with too many of the same questions being reworked and discussed. Aviation weather was not addressed in depth.

-

Lyn Maximuk's talk was preaching to the choir.

-

The least useful..if I have to pick something was the FX-Collaborate demo.
 

45: What GFESuite topics need MORE focus?
 

Configuration

-

Give more information on what we should not miss while we are in Boulder as tourists.

-

Text Formatters

-

Numeric Python, text formatters.

-

With the evolution of SmartTools and their eventual plateau-ing in maturity, I believe more should be devoted to the text formatters in future sessions.

-

Configuration/Initialization

-

Text Formatters (need a lab) and more time dedicated to Smart Init.

-

I think most issues were well covered, considering the short amount of time that was available for the workshop.

-

Configuration

-

Text extraction and formatting need to be explained in more detail, with labs, too.

-

Operational strategies by more advanced offices in IFPS. GFE configuration

-

Smart Tools and Smart Initialization since this will be our future. We need more documentation on the modules used to create our smart tools.

-

Text Formatters (do an actual lab with the new format).

-

I thought that the time allocation was just right - enough to teach and allow for practice, but not too much and enough to get me excited about doing it at my home office. Integration into the entire IFPS system would be great too.

-

I thought it had great balance.

-

Text formatters.

-

can't think of any.

-

How to configure things.

-

Probably configuration. That much is required of every office. Smart tools could be the topic of a separate workshop for only those interested.

-

the most useful parts. :)

-

Configuration issues

-

Seemed just right

-

Product configuration for web pages. How to configure RDF's, state temperature tables, etc. More on text product formatters. I can't get too much of that.

-

SMART Initialization ifpIMAGE Python and SMART TOOLS

-

On-hands

-

Text products. This will become more and more important as we head towards the OFFICIAL release of the text formatters. I think there is a LOT of interest in the field on this item, there just needs to be more training on how to install and manipulate them to meet local needs. But this is still a work in progress right now.

-

Python and smart tools...this coming from someone who thinks python is a weird language.

-

Text Products Generation...but I guess that will be forthcoming with the new software releases.

-

Perhaps DFC once the software matures more where configuration is more of an issue.

-

text formatters...implementation plans

-

In an advanced course... continue to focus on writing smart tools and procedures. We are the ones who are going to get into the guts locally.

-

System maintenance...and whether GFE or IFPS is going to be the main system. Aviation weather. Forecaster techniques.

-

formatters

-

Sliders with out a doubt!!!...very little is being done in the field with this....no one seems to really be able to use it much. Also the use and configuration of the FSL-text formatters need to be focused on.
 
 
 

46: What GFESuite topics need LESS focus?
 

I thought it was all needed

-

They all seemed important. The more information we can take back to our office about GFE the better off we will be.

-

Smart Initialization

-

Maybe spent too much time on smart tools... in the sense that everyone should have had at least some experience with smart tools before coming to the course, so that we could have spent time just on the more advanced topics.

-

What's new with GFE, FX-Collaborate, Joint discussions.

-

Nothing comes to mind.

-

With the exception of ISC, a majority of the topics relating to IFPSImage and other programs (ifpMosaic, etc.) were well handled in the on-line GFE documentation or in the Workshop Binder.

-

IFPImage...mainly because the regions are standardizing the output.

-

nothing, everything was important.

-

cant think of any.

-

Smarttools.

-

the least useful parts. :)

-

None comes immediately to mind.

-

GFESuite configuration--just because now everyone has had the training and are closer to a minimum level.

-

Probably basic configuration stuff. Unless someone is really new to GFE, I think a lot of people would have figured out the basics of configuration by now, since that's probably the first thing you have to deal with to get it to work properly.

-

Ifpimage...especially if regions decide to standardize their formats.

-

IfpImage/ISC

-

I thought everything that was covered needed some focus...except perhaps fx-collaborate...depending on what form for that we eventually receive.

-

None... all are very important to creating a useful tool at the office.

-

ISC unless problems develop

-

none that I know of.
 

47: Please make any additional comments about this training experience.
 

Kudos all around...the entire field could use such training

-

The folks at FSL are top notch and have a genuine interest in helping make the GFE experience as pain free as possible. This was very refreshing to see.

-

I loved the class, Like I said above, I picked up something new from each subject.

-

Overall was an excellent workshop!

-

An outstanding workshop. Great job.

-

I appreciated the willingness of Mark, Tracy, Tom and Mike to accept suggestions, criticisms and questions. Putting a face with the names of the developers really helped me appreciate the magnitude of the project, and some of the motivation behind programming decisions they made. Thanks for a good workshop.

-

The workshop was great. The FSL group really impressed me. Thanks for setting this up and helping us out.

-

Overall, I think the GFESuite Training Workshop was an excellent training experience that was delivered very professionally - despite the rather limited amount of training time allocated to cover the full range of topics included in the workshop.

-

I enjoyed the GFE Training Workshop very much. With only a couple of exceptions, the functionality, utility and documentation associated with GFE has been EXCELLENT!!!. During and following the incremental IFPS Build installations on-station, the GFE Software Suite has proved to be the most trouble-free part of IFPS. Thanks!!!

-

Was just unsure of how to get to class, where is was, how far from the hotel. This was my first trip to Boulder, but once I figured everything out, all was just fine. Perhaps, I missed this at the web site. Great Training experience with valuable information, great location, great hotel!

-

The workshop was excellent. I can not think of anything I would change.

-

I felt the workshop was well worth it. I learned a lot and would recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about the future of forecasting.

-

Very useful course. I am already employing much of what I learned on site. No real major changes are needed. Hopefully HQ will continue to fund additional courses.

-

It was cool to see and meet you all. I had met Mr. LeFebvre in the mid 90s, so I was confused since he had not changed a lick, and I had! I liked Ms. Hanson's cats too! Otherwise it was worth the trip, and I appreciate your efforts greatly. Good Beer too. Thanks.

-

Great workshop!

-

Great Course. The instructors showed their passion for the subjects.

-

Was a very useful experience and recommend the training to all IFPS focal points or SOO's.

-

It was GREAT to learn firsthand from the experts.

-

I was very pleased at how the workshop was handled. You FSL folks are to be commended for the hard work you put out, especially with regards to development and support. And then to think that these workshops are kinda "extra" for you, you guys must eat, sleep, breath and dream GFE (wait a minute...that kinda describes me the past few months :-). Thanks again for working your tails off to put together such a high quality workshop! If it were up to me, you would all get the DOC Gold Medals (maybe someday :-) I was really glad that I could finally attend. Thanks for making room for me!

-

NWS should provide more training like this. We need a beginner python course.

-

I was a little lost with Smart Initialization. I guess I really don't understand how that works. For instance, how do I configure model data to automatically adjust a certain temperature 5 degrees or so for a particular zone because the model has either a warm/cool bias for that zone. Again......THIS WAS GREAT WORKSHOP! YOU FOLKS AT FSL ARE TO BE COMMENDED FOR YOUR PROFESSIONALISM AND DEDICATION TO THIS PROJECT. YOUR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS IN WORKING WITH THE FIELD IS EXEMPLARY, AND IS GREATLY, GREATLY APPRECIATED BY THOSE OF US IN THE FIELD. THANK YOU VERY.........VERY MUCH!!!!!!!

-

I enjoyed this workshop very much. It covered a lot of material on GFESuite in a short period of time. All of the instructors were very knowledgeable and were very eager to help in our learning process.

-

I enjoyed my time there during the workshop. Having met each of you helps to put a face with a name.

-

Great training. I hope this was not the last session.

-

Overall, It was a very good experience. I learned a lot about smart tools and numeric python that has already carried over into various tools locally.

-

Excellent workshop that was well worth my time to attend. I would hope perhaps sometime in the future to attend another workshop if it is held. The GFESuite team has done an excellent job--keep up the great work!!!

-

Great job! Thanks.

-

Not real keen on the Broker Inn. It was hard to find, the rooms were dark, my TV didn't work, and I don't like hotels without credit card keys. I realize there may not be much else available. Also don't like having half day the last day. There are usually a lot of people leaving anyway, and that makes setting up travel plans much more difficult.

-

well organized workshop. I really thought you folks did a great job. Sorry I was late in my survey.

-

Great class. Learned a wealth of knowledge. Thank you very much! You guys could be teachers on the side also... you were that good! Also... thank you to Mark for setting up a login to download the RPP version of the GFE for the RFC in Sacramento. I got back Monday and it was already set up! Allowed me to keep up on everything I already learned. I appreciate this greatly!

-

I appreciated the effort that obviously went into the training development...especially since you are not trained in or tasked with training.

-

THIS and the 88D---weather radar training were by far the best and most focused training that I have received in my career at the NWS!!!