CFH12k Queued Observing Programme: Preliminary Description.
9. Policies.
A number of policy issues will need to be established before the queued observing programme is begun.
9.1. Mixed queued and classical observing.
We strongly advise that the TACs allow only queued observing with the CFH12k in the semesters in which it is offered. This is because the queued observing paradigm works best if there is a large pool of observations from which to draw, with a wide range of allowable observing conditions.
In any case, if classical observations are to be made, they must be entirely independent, in all aspects, from the queued observing programme. If calibrations can be shared, this is normally a matter for negotiation ex post facto since the degree of completion of the queued observations cannot be established a priori.
9.2. Time-critical observations.
However, Time critical observations and target-of-opportunity observations do not easily fit within the queued observing paradigm and should be obtained in a classical mode which overrides any queued programme.
9.3. Visiting observers.
Depending on how much time is allocated to the queued observing programme CFHT may not have sufficient resources in-house to carry it out. Suitably qualified observers will need to be recruited from the participating communities. We hope that these will be observers scheduled to receive queued observing time, but investigators with programmes approved within a given CFH12k run should not make observations during that run. That is, they may not act as service observers when there is any risk of unfair competition with other investigators.
9.4. Failed observations.
If a mistake is made by the observer, or if there is an instrument failure, the failed observation does not consume I-time allocated to the programme concerned. (That is, a failed observation will be immediately repeated unless it is no longer viable).
9.5. Arbitration of disputes.
In the event that an investigator feels that his observations were not made under the specified conditions and this investigator is unable to persuade the queued observing team coordinator that these observations should be repeated, then he may appeal to the Director of CFHT, who has final authority.
9.6. Tier 2 proposal resubmission.
After a programme has begun, an investigator may inspect her data and may find that her Tier 2 proposal did not anticipate circumstances as experienced. In this event, the investigator may change and resubmit her Tier 2 proposal. This must be done before sunset and with sufficient time for the queued observing team to examine any changes. Under these circumstances, any I-time already expended on this programme is considered lost and the investigator may rearrange only what time remains allocated to her programme. Similarly, a programme may be suspended to prevent the waste of further I-time while the investigator considers her options.
9.7. Investigator/Observer communications.
The investigator must provide some path of communication at all times during an observing run in which his programme is present in the queue. The investigator may not communicate directly with the observer about his programme during the run, but will instead communicate with the queued observing team coordinator. This is in order to avoid the possibility of increasing the stress on the already stressed observer.
9.8. Programme termination.
The programme will terminate when the maximum allocated I-time has been consumed unless there are clear reasons for continuing, according to the discretion of the observer within a night and that of the queued observing team and the Director of CFHT if further nights are involved. Under no other circumstances may a programme consume more I-time than is allocated by the TAC.
9.9. Incomplete programmes and non-starters.
Programmes that are started, but not completed at the end of a run or semester may be carried over into the next run or semester. This process is not automatic, but will be subject to review and dependent on the degree of completion of the relevent programmes. For example, the proposals may be resubmitted to the TAC to be separately reviewed for continuation.
Programmes scheduled, but not started in a given semester will be returned to the TAC for reassessment. (The alternative is to carry over all incomplete or unstarted programmes, but such proposals will have to be re-ranked against newly submitted proposals anyway.)
Web conversion by: Dr. T. M. C. Abbott,
tmca@cfht.hawaii.edu
Copyright © 1998, CFHT Corporation. All rights
reserved.