AI framework for automated terminal aerodrome forecasting
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/aviation.2025.25334Abstract
Accurate Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts (TAFs) are essential for aviation safety and operational efficiency worldwide. This study develops an AI framework for automated TAF generation, including data preprocessing, model development, and evaluation. Using GFS and ECMWF datasets from 2020–2023 and real TAF forecasts from Brno International Airport the study explores the effectiveness of ML approaches for wind speed and visibility prediction. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) efficiently reduced dimensionality for wind speed predictors but proved less effective for visibility, highlighting its complex nature. Feature importance analysis identified initial observations and seasonal patterns as dominant predictors, underscoring the influence of data quality. Regression models for wind speed met ICAO standards. While Gradient Boosting (GB) classification outperformed human forecasts in raw accuracy, it suffered from poor probability calibration due to dataset imbalance. A critical evaluation of accuracy metrics – such as log-loss and F1-score – revealed their advantages and limitations, particularly in handling imbalanced datasets and probabilistic forecasting. Beyond its empirical findings, the study provides a theoretical foundation for integrating machine learning (ML) into TAF generation, discussing methodological considerations and the interaction between model performance and forecast interpretability. Future research is recommended to focus on the local models, explore advanced models, and expand the framework to diverse climatic conditions.
Keywords:
accuracy metrics, aviation forecasts, machine learning forecasting, terminal forecast, TAF, weather forecastingHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Altinok, A., Kiran, R., Bue, B., & Bilimoria, K. (2018). Modeling key predictors of airport runway configurations using learning algorithms. In 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference. Aerospace Research Central. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3673
Anggoro, M., Siregar, D. C., Ninggar, R., & Widomurti, L. (2019). Aerodrome warning verification using quality measurement of contingency table (Case study in Jakarta and Tanjungpinang). In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Statistics and Analytics (ICSA 2019), Bogor, Indonesia. EUDL. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.2-8-2019.2290486
Ayhan, S., Comitz, P., Gerberick, G., & Wilson, I. (2013). ADTOS: Arrival departure tradeoff optimization system. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on GeoStreaming (pp. 50–57). ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/2534303.2534314
Boyd, D., & Guinn, T. (2021). A comparison of the Localized Aviation MOS Program (LAMP) and Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF) accuracy for general aviation. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1230
Buxi, G., & Hansen, M. (2013). Generating day-of-operation probabilistic capacity scenarios from weather forecasts. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 33, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2012.12.006
Chase, R. J., Harrison, D. R., Burke, A., Lackmann, G. M., & McGovern, A. (2022). A machine learning tutorial for operational meteorology. Part I: Traditional machine learning. Weather and Forecasting, 37(8), 1509–1529. https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-22-0070.1
Dhal, R., Roy, S., Taylor, C., & Wan, Y. (2013). Forecasting weather-impacted airport capacities for flow contingency management: Advanced methods and integration. In AIAA Aviation Forum 2013. Aerospace Research Central. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2013-4356
Everitt, B. J., Landau, S., & Leese, M. (1974). Cluster analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL21531058M/Cluster_analysis
Famiglini, L., Campagner, A., & Cabitza, F. (2023). Towards a rigorous calibration assessment framework: Advancements in metrics, methods, and use. In Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. ECAI (Vol. 372, pp. 645–652). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA230327
Ferri, C., Hernández‐Orallo, J., & Modroiu, R. (2008). An experimental comparison of performance measures for classification. Pattern Recognition Letters, 30(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2008.08.010
Hubbard, K. G., Goddard, S., Sorensen, W., Wells, N. P., & Osugi, T. T. (2005). Performance of quality assurance procedures for an applied climate information system. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 22(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-1657.1
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2016). International Standards and Recommended Practices: Annex 3 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation – Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation (19th ed.). ICAO.
Jacobs, A., & Maat, N. (2005). Numerical guidance methods for decision support in aviation meteorological forecasting. Weather and Forecasting, 20(1), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-827.1
Jolliffe, I. T. (2005). Principal component analysis. In Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa501
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. Wiley. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA00969679
Kicinger, R., Chen, J., Steiner, M., & Pinto, J. (2016). Airport capacity prediction with explicit consideration of weather forecast uncertainty. Journal of Air Transportation, 24(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.D0017
Lanyon, A., Standen, J., & Buchanan, P. (2020). A new process for producing first-guess TAFs. In EGU General Assembly 2020. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-5154
Mason, S. J. (2004). On using “climatology” as a reference strategy in the Brier and ranked probability skill scores. Monthly Weather Review, 132(7), 1891–1895. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<1891:OUCAAR>2.0.CO;2
Natekin, A., & Knoll, A. (2013). Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2013.00021
National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Weather Service/NOAA/U.S. Department of Commerce. (2015). NCEP GFS 0.25-degree global forecast grids historical archive. Research Data Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.5065/D65D8PWK
Nielsen‐Gammon, J. W., Hu, X. M., Zhang, F., & Pleim, J. E. (2010). Evaluation of planetary boundary layer scheme sensitivities for the purpose of parameter estimation. Monthly Weather Review, 138(9), 3400–3417. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3292.1
Novotný, J., Dejmal, K., Repal, V., Gera, M., & Sladek, D. (2021). Assessment of TAF, METAR, and SPECI reports based on ICAO ANNEX 3 regulation. Atmosphere, 12(2), Article 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020138
Patriarca, R., Simone, F., Di Gravio, G., Bonafé, G. P., Gobbi, G. P., & Angelini, F. (2023). Supporting weather forecasting performance management at aerodromes through anomaly detection and hierarchical clustering. Expert Systems with Applications, 213, Article 119210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119210
Simone, F., Di Gravio, G., & Patriarca, R. (2022). Performance-based analysis of aerodrome weather forecasts. In 2022 New Trends in Civil Aviation (NTCA) (pp. 27–33). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/NTCA55899.2022.9934004
Sládek, D., Chalupníková, B., Schneidrová, A., & Roučková, L. (2024). Analyses of European terminal aerodrome weather forecasts in 2022 and 2023. Aviation, 28(2), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.3846/aviation.2024.21690
Wong, W.-K., Lau, C.-S., & Chan, P.-W. (2013). Aviation model: A fine-scale Numerical Weather Prediction system for aviation applications at the Hong Kong International Airport. Advances in Meteorology, 2013, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/532475
View article in other formats
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.