Does spotter training need improving?

[Jim Saueressig]

Originally Posted by David Drummond

I saw non-rotating scud reported as funnels. I saw some of that scud that on the leading edge of some outflow that also had the outflow dust foot under it, reported (multiple times by the same person) as a landspout (there was ZERO rotation). This person should know better, as they were driving for one of the popular tour groups out there.

I saw a large gustnado reported as a large tornado by yet the leader of a separate tour group.

And these were all on the same day even!!!

I see this every time I am out. I can't help but wonder how many more of these false reports are being called in. Seriously... tornadic circulation is not that hard to identify once you see it and not every piece of cloud that rotates a little is a tornado either.

I've seen quite a few chasers posting stuff on their websites calling something a wall cloud, or a funnel cloud or a tornado when it's very clear, even from the still image they posted, that it was not any of those things.

Sorry for a little rant, but this is really starting to become a pet peeve for me over the years. I've always believed anything worth doing is worth doing right, even if that means getting a little education first.

It doesn't help when the people seeking to be informed are finding the same thing you are talking about as their lessons. I myself have seen numerous reports and videos here on ST claiming a tornado, wall cloud, funnel cloud etc and I just don't see it in the videos. Sometimes it is obviously not what they think they saw but sometimes it is not so clear. I start thinking I am ignoring things I should be reporting when I see enough "professionals" reporting something I surely don't see. I guess I will stick with what works best, If it's 100% positive I will call it in, if I am not 100% I will ask later from a picture.... Even then it's not a sure thing because on the few occasions I have asked about a feature or something I can get even more answers than I thought possible.

[Tim Shriver]

The Basic spotter classes are just that, basic. They make it clear at ours
that attending this one class does not make you a spotter, but
attending it every year and seeking out further knowledge
is the key.

Many of our members in the past and it looks like some more will attend
this year, a 10 class, 3 hour per class Advanced Spotter Class.
This is supplied no charge to us from M.A.S.T..

While this may be a little overkill and think he could cut it down some,
it is a very good class. One that brings the level of knowledge and performance of the
spotter up a notch or two.

In the end it is up to the spotter to seek further education.
Don't wait around for the government to hand you everything.
(unless your a bank or GM)

Tim

[Andrew Herron]

Just as soon as you guys start volunteering your time to further train spotters and chasers in your area, we'll get some results.

While I'm sure none of you would even consider saying that the NWS mets should work harder, they're under constraints too. You simply cannot cover the material in a way that would benefit everyone from the first time attendee to the seasoned spotter.

Want something more advanced? Set it up. Talk to your EM or RACES/Skywarn coordinators and see if there's something that can be worked out. Expecting a second class or more beyond the basic class from our NWS mets is just irrisponsible. They have primary jobs to do and I'd rather have them watching the weather than taking the time to do something that I've already done on my own.

*****, moan, or gripe all you want, but if you see something that needs to be done and you've got enough time to complain about it... you've got enough time to step up and help out.

As a RACES/Skywarn coordinator I, along with the other AEC and EC, am doing all I can to help educate people. We've set up multiple trainings, probably more than we should bother the NWS with, and we're there to offer support. The training I got when I was younger was enough to make me seek out more information. It caused me to find places like this where I can talk to the more experienced. The ultimate solution is YOU.

I'm sorry, but there's no doubt that the Commerce Department isn't going to see a sudden jump in funding, and therefore you should not expect a sudden change in policy with regards to training of spotters.

Tim is right, but at the same time we also shouldn't just expect people to do it on their own. There are people who don't know they don't know. It's up to us, the more experienced, to show them what's what and how to be better at their VOLUNTEER service. We might even learn something about ourselves in the process.

As far as the class DTX offers, specifically this year, I think it was very well put together. It does in fact get more deep into the dynamics of storm development and what to look for. There's even an interactive quiz to help distinguish SCUD from the real deal.

I recognize all the time and effort put into all of this, and while all offices are different, there's not a one of us here who can't say we don't appreciate what the NWS mets do.

If you have specific suggestions or comments about the training course that's presented, I suggest you contact the WCM at your NWS office and not bugger up this forum. It will be much better recieved by them and your efforts will be better utilized.

[David Drummond]

Of course Andrew, you assume that none of us have ever done that. I've spoken at some of the spotter meetings, but outside of that I have offered, many times to various EM, law enforcement, fire dept, etc to come out and give them some more specialized training.

Would you like to guess what I was told in every case?

"The National Weather Service already comes out and gives us training."

Yep, they feel that is enough.

[Andrew Herron]

David, I never said you, or anyone else. I was being as general as possible.

Don't know about you, but if things were bad enough, their lack of support wouldn't stop me. It's not against the law to give your own training. If you're willing to devote the time to offer it, then why not just do it?

[David Drummond]

That's my point though. In all the ones I personally have spoken with (I'm not talking about NWS), they all feel that the 1-2 hour classes the NWS comes out and gives them is all they ever need. How can you volunteer additional training if they don't want it?

For instance, in one particular county, I hear them on the scanner when storms are in their area, they activate their little EOC and their designated people go out and look. I can tell from being in the same places as they are, or by noting their locations and what they are trying to see, that they could very much benefit from additional training. They have a main guy at the EOC that gives out radar info he's getting from the local TV station website (not all that great and not very frequently updated). Bless his heart, he tried but it's clear he really does not know what he is looking at 90% of the time.

I offered the Sheriff one time when we talked to come up and give then some more detailed radar training. I was hoping he would take me up on that, and maybe it could eventually move in to giving them more detailed instructions on chasing the storms in their county, which is what they attempt to do.

I was told they had classes from the NWS and they have a guy that knows all about the radar.

Which is why I guess I hear him say things like "well the it's green and I think there might be some hail because there is some yellow just north of ______" and it's clear even by that he's looking at radar over an hour old.

Just one example. Hopefully my experiences aren't the norm. I'm absolutely all for volunteering some time for some more in depth training, but they have to be receptive to it.

[Andrew Herron]

I see your point! "...drove the Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry?"

There IS only so much you can do and my comments weren't directed to you or anyone else who volunteers. It just bugs me that some people see fit to soapbox here when really they should be directing their thoughts and comments to the WCM.

[Jim Saueressig]

Hah, you have been here in my county! We even have our own radar......

But you will never tell anyone here that they don't know it all and need more training, it pains me to listen to the radar summaries and field reports at times and especially when I am looking at what was just reported as _________!

They only use their fireman, they take no one else anymore and sometimes the fellows that head out are already so tanked it's a flipping wonder there haven't been reports of little green men falling from the sky!

Originally Posted by David Drummond

For instance, in one particular county, I hear them on the scanner when storms are in their area, they activate their little EOC and their designated people go out and look. I can tell from being in the same places as they are, or by noting their locations and what they are trying to see, that they could very much benefit from additional training. They have a main guy at the EOC that gives out radar info he's getting from the local TV station website (not all that great and not very frequently updated). Bless his heart, he tried but it's clear he really does not know what he is looking at 90% of the time.

I offered the Sheriff one time when we talked to come up and give then some more detailed radar training. I was hoping he would take me up on that, and maybe it could eventually move in to giving them more detailed instructions on chasing the storms in their county, which is what they attempt to do.

I was told they had classes from the NWS and they have a guy that knows all about the radar.

Which is why I guess I hear him say things like "well the it's green and I think there might be some hail because there is some yellow just north of ______" and it's clear even by that he's looking at radar over an hour old.

Just one example. Hopefully my experiences aren't the norm. I'm absolutely all for volunteering some time for some more in depth training, but they have to be receptive to it.

[Terry Tyler]

I dont buy into the fact someone can be "certified" by a two-hour class. Ive been to plenty of classes and its all pretty much the same subject matter. Its good and educational and all that but i felt like it was missing something. There wasnt any kind of "certification" from what i saw. You just signed in and sat there.

My philosophy on the matter is this. I believe that its better to have 100 "trained" spotters then 3000 "untrained" spotters. If your considering a layman who comes in off the street with no prior education to severe storms. You cant expect him to be a viable spotter and fully understand storm structure and mechanics the first time around. It has taken me years to get to this education level and sometimes i still dont know what im looking at.

Opening the doors to anybody is just setting yourself up to get more conflicting reports. When you start getting a bunch of bull**** coming in, you start losing the integrity of ground truth information. I strongly agree along the lines of what apritchard was talking about. Instead of having a 2-hour meet twice a year. I would propose that people have to go through and fill out several detailed applications to be a NWS spotter. I also think that people need to go through about 20 hours of extensive training and be tested on their knowledge at the end of each session. I also like the idea of doing a little ride along to view a real-life thunderstorm.

Having rigorous standards is critical to having good, reliable reports. I know there are some that would say that its crazy to expect people to jump through hoops like that, but the way i see it. Its the hoops that would attract only the best and brightest to go out there. Only someone who truly had a hard on to be a spotter would go through there. A program like that would be a dual sided blade that weeds out those who are too lazy or uncommited to follow through and provides more detailed training to those who really do care and want to do a good job.

Ive been to too many classes where the instructor says "im sorry, ill try to wrap this up as soon as possible". Somehow i feel thats where the problem lies. I believe as with anything, if your going to do something, you might as well go all the way. Otherwise its best not to go at all. If you packed all your yearly funds spent on current spotter training and consolidated it all to one 20 hour-course session held one week once a year at a reputable university camperson. You would have less spotters coming out but alot higher quality spotters.

[terra seright]

Originally Posted by David Drummond

That's my point though. In all the ones I personally have spoken with (I'm not talking about NWS), they all feel that the 1-2 hour classes the NWS comes out and gives them is all they ever need. How can you volunteer additional training if they don't want it?

For instance, in one particular county, I hear them on the scanner when storms are in their area, they activate their little EOC and their designated people go out and look. I can tell from being in the same places as they are, or by noting their locations and what they are trying to see, that they could very much benefit from additional training. They have a main guy at the EOC that gives out radar info he's getting from the local TV station website (not all that great and not very frequently updated). Bless his heart, he tried but it's clear he really does not know what he is looking at 90% of the time.

I offered the Sheriff one time when we talked to come up and give then some more detailed radar training. I was hoping he would take me up on that, and maybe it could eventually move in to giving them more detailed instructions on chasing the storms in their county, which is what they attempt to do.

I was told they had classes from the NWS and they have a guy that knows all about the radar.

Which is why I guess I hear him say things like "well the it's green and I think there might be some hail because there is some yellow just north of ______" and it's clear even by that he's looking at radar over an hour old.

Just one example. Hopefully my experiences aren't the norm. I'm absolutely all for volunteering some time for some more in depth training, but they have to be receptive to it.

OK, new spotter here, and I'm speaking my mind, please don't take offense y'all, but I calls it like I sees it.

I fully agree with the points that have been made here...but let's look at it from the other side!

One thing that has been a hurdle for my family is that the training schedule is not easy to find if you don't know where to look. We watched the news for the workshop info for 2 months and never heard a thing about it last year. This year, we'd done some research and found the local NOAA guy's email.

Then, we go to the meeting, and I had hell getting a good grasp on it because of the guy in the row behind me constantly commenting on EVERY photo and video. This is one of our local emergency services guys, believe it or not. As if the comments weren't loud enough to break my ability to pay careful attention, he was also smack-talking on "new spotters" every time they showed people who got stuck/washed away/hailed on...

I couldn't answer any of the little "pop quiz" questions because I hadn't heard all of the lecture. I had to go back and study on my own and didn't have the ability to ask questions on the material, since I had not heard enough to know what I didn't understand about it.

Another issue---Have you all been to any of the spotter chat rooms? I've asked questions in there, and rarely gotten them answered. I joined some of these chats because I thought I could get a better idea about what I'm doing out in the field, and get some quick answers to questions that I might have. Nope. Most of my questions are completely ignored. There are some who will answer, but mostly I'm left with a feeling like I'm not part of the elite clique, so I should STFU. I understand that sometimes in the chats, people are paying attention to the chases that may be happening at the time, but really, how much trouble is it to answer a question here and there?

Here are a few that I've asked recently...and been completely ignored.

How far off can one see a tornado? How reliable is the tornado history project? Is the RFD always on the same side of a tornado? Can you get a clearing (RFD) without an actual tornado touching down? Can you get a tornado without an RFD? Do tornadoes ever appear from the tower, or is it always from the wall? (yea I know these should be on another thread, I'm just using them for the point I'm making here)

My point is:
Some of us are receptive..........but we hit brick walls.

Yes, the training should be much more in-depth, and accessible, because (for one thing) I should not have had to learn not to punch a core by way of a microburst moving the truck to the other lane, tires off the pavement. I know it was a microburst and not a macroburst because I found it in the Advanced Spotter's Field Guide earlier today. The training should also be a class and not a "good time to meet your buddies and talk about the accident that you worked earlier in the day". Thank God I watch the news story that they put out every year during severe weather awareness week, or I'd have thought I was in a tornado when I was in a gustnado, similar to a report made in one of the posts above!