Silver Lining Tours vans rolled in Kansas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan 16, 2009
668
709
21
Kansas City
I can tell you that the rotation was on us and we saw nothing as far as structure or tornado features. Winds south then north that was about all we could see. Very HP
 

Colman Mulkern

Enthusiast
Dec 20, 2015
5
4
1
Topeka, KS
I live in Lawrence, saw the tornado and yesterday I surveyed part of the damage path from the start of the tornado to US 59. I found the first signs of the tornado on E 450 Rd about a mile southwest of where the van was impacted. Several structures were hit in the vicinity of the van. From that point on there was a clear damage path all the way to US 59. It is possible that there was a satellite, although the data I collected does not seem to indicate that. The path appeared to be complex, with several north-south wobbles early on in the life of the tornado. I will link my tweet for the survey I took. I have no opinion on SLT or the incident, just putting some facts out there.
 
Jan 14, 2011
2,941
2,753
21
St. Louis
stormhighway.com
I can't help but sense some out-of-place coddling of chase tour guests here. I'm not advocating taking unnecessary risks or being reckless with people in your care. But let's not act like a tour group is a bus full of nuns or school kids. These are people who are out there for the same reasons you and I are. I've met many of them. Many of them have "graduated" to being longtime independent chasers. Some are even active on ST. They want to see a tornado, to have the same experiences you and I like to have. That is what they signed up for and what they paid large amounts of money to do. The waivers tell them there is a remote chance that incidents just like this could happen.

Sure, you can see a tornado from 10 miles away and be 100% free from any risk of getting hit. But that style of chasing is unacceptable for me personally. I am not happy with that and will never be. It's like driving cross country to NYC to see the Statue of Liberty and end up with a hazy, low contrast view of it from across the bay and in between buildings. To me, that is simply lame. What's the point? I'm not being critical of those who ARE happy with that, just I'm always perplexed why some are acting like wanting to be close enough for good contrast, to see detailed motion, to hear the sound is so unreasonable.

Is there a risk? Yes. I accept the risk. Do I want to get hit? No, and I take measures to ensure that does not happen to the best of my ability. But to chase like I do means that the risk is never going to be zero. Many of you are correct to say that the risk can only be zero if you stay FAR away to the point that you are in the nosebleed seats all the time. If that makes you happy, go for it. Not me! I'd venture to say that tour guests who have spent $6,000 to fly around the world to chase probably aren't so happy with that idea either.

You want zero risk? Stay 10 miles away and be happy with your zero-contrast shots that you have to torture in Photoshop to even prove you saw it. You want to see something better? Accept a less-than-zero risk.
 
Last edited:
We need to keep in mind that this was not the result of negligence or because the road was lined up with 200 other chasers, but rather it was a satellite tornado that suddenly formed that overtook them. It can happen to any of us as they're unpredictable and the cause of why they form isn't really known. You could be a good distance away from the main tornado and get impacted by a satellite tornado; I'm not sure but this may be the first time a chaser was impacted by a satellite tornado (not the main tornado) in this manner. I think, as some has said, the main battle Roger will most likely have is with the insurance company. Either way, I have the utmost respect for Roger, he's a great chaser and does so safely and I hope nothing but the best for him.
I believe that the Weather Channel vehicle that was rolled on May 31st, 2013 was impacted by a satellite tornado. I could be wrong though.
 
Jun 16, 2015
476
1,133
21
34
Oklahoma City, OK
quincyvagell.com
Below are a few tweets I just posted. I spotted four vans at 6:01 p.m. that were between 0.5 and 1 blocks north of the incident, within five minutes of the tornado damage.

I am assuming it is their vans and if so, they were in an even more dangerous spot and were driving south, directly into the tornado a few minutes later.

Again, I am assuming it is their vans... it is possible that they belong to the church, but I’m highly skeptical of that.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,172
1,033
21
Newtown, Pennsylvania
Dan, I can see it both ways. What you say is true about the non-zero risk, but there is a large continuum of chasing practices between being 10 miles away and being that close. It used to be that even being in "the bear's cage" of any supercell was frowned upon as a chasing practice.

I think you hit on something regarding many of the tourists being out there for the same reasons we are, and being willing to take risks, and not deserving to be coddled. But remember there are a spectrum of participants; others of them, especially the newer ones, might tend to be much more conservative in the risks they want to take, or think they are taking. They hear about the risks, sign the waivers, but don't *really* expect anything bad to happen. You might say that, if this is the case, they are unrealistic and not going into it with their eyes wide open. But there are warnings and disclaimers on everything these days, even amusement park rides, and most of us sign waivers all the time without a second thought, not really expecting to be harmed. We go on airplanes knowing they could crash (God forbid), but we would still be disappointed in the pilot that doesn't get us safely to our destination.

I tried to think back to the mindset of a tourist, which I was when I started. I took one of the original tours with Marty Feely in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Back then, Marty's Whirlwind Tours and Charles Edwards's Cloud 9 Tours were two of a very small number of tour companies; I don't even think SL had started back then. Anyway, I remember before my first trip, knowing there was some risk, but trusting implicitly that Marty knew what he was doing after 13 years and wouldn't put us in any danger. There was a certain reliance upon his expertise. Like going on any adventure trip, it should be inherently safer than doing it yourself. But of course there was knowledge that it wasn't a senior citizen trip to see a washed-up performer in Nashville either.
 

Dean Baron

Supporter
Sep 25, 2006
551
195
11
31
Minneapolis, MN
I can't help but sense some out-of-place coddling of chase tour guests here. I'm not advocating taking unnecessary risks or being reckless with people in your care. But let's not act like a tour group is a bus full of nuns or school kids. These are people who are out there for the same reasons you and I are. I've met many of them. Many of them have "graduated" to being longtime independent chasers. Some are even active on ST. They want to see a tornado, to have the same experiences you and I like to have. That is what they signed up for and what they paid large amounts of money to do. The waivers tell them there is a remote chance that incidents just like this could happen.

Sure, you can see a tornado from 10 miles away and be 100% free from any risk of getting hit. But that style of chasing is unacceptable for me personally. I am not happy with that and will never be happy with it. It's like driving cross country to NYC to see the Statue of Liberty and end up with a hazy, low contrast view of it from across the bay and in between buildings. To me, that is simply lame. What's the point? I'm not being critical of those who ARE happy with that, just I'm always perplexed why some are acting like wanting to be close enough for good contrast, to see detailed motion, to hear the sound is so unreasonable.

Is there a risk? Yes. I accept the risk. Do I want to get hit? No, and I take measures to ensure that does not happen to the best of my ability. But to chase like I do means that the risk is never going to be zero. Many of you are correct to say that the risk can only be zero if you stay FAR away to the point that you are in the nosebleed seats all the time. If that makes you happy, go for it. Not me! I'd venture to say that tour guests who have spend $6,000 to fly around the world to chase probably aren't so happy with that idea either.

You want zero risk? Stay 10 miles away and be happy with your zero-contrast shots that you have to torture in Photoshop to even prove you saw it. You want to see something better? Accept a less-than-zero risk. Is that really so difficult?
I have to disagree with your tone. I don't think you need to stay 10 miles away in order to be safe and have a very, very small chance of something going wrong. I'd say anything more than 3 miles away is pretty damn safe, and would still offer a pretty good view on most storms. Once you get within a mile or two, things can go bad quickly, especially on a monster HP storm that offers little view of a large and violent tornado anyway. Not only do you still not have much to see at 1-2 miles, but you can't see the signs you are starting to be put in danger. I would think a rule of thumb for tour groups would be to stay in that 3-5 mile range where you are close enough to see but far enough away to be safe. Just my opinion. I don't own a tour company so it's not my problem to figure out.
 
I can't say what's safe or what's not for a tour group, or anybody else for that matter. But, it makes you wonder if complacency starts creeping in after a certain amount of time, even for the most seasoned veterans, or if risk tolerance naturally increases and you put yourself in places you wouldn't have dreamed of 5-10 years ago because of the success of each year before. I know this happens for me and I don't even realize it until after the fact. My guess is corrections will be made and a special emphasis on safety will take place going forward.
 
Mar 2, 2004
2,335
519
11
Wichita, KS
www.facebook.com
I can't help but sense some out-of-place coddling of chase tour guests here. I'm not advocating taking unnecessary risks or being reckless with people in your care. But let's not act like a tour group is a bus full of nuns or school kids. These are people who are out there for the same reasons you and I are. I've met many of them. Many of them have "graduated" to being longtime independent chasers. Some are even active on ST. They want to see a tornado, to have the same experiences you and I like to have. That is what they signed up for and what they paid large amounts of money to do. The waivers tell them there is a remote chance that incidents just like this could happen.

Sure, you can see a tornado from 10 miles away and be 100% free from any risk of getting hit. But that style of chasing is unacceptable for me personally. I am not happy with that and will never be. It's like driving cross country to NYC to see the Statue of Liberty and end up with a hazy, low contrast view of it from across the bay and in between buildings. To me, that is simply lame. What's the point? I'm not being critical of those who ARE happy with that, just I'm always perplexed why some are acting like wanting to be close enough for good contrast, to see detailed motion, to hear the sound is so unreasonable.

Is there a risk? Yes. I accept the risk. Do I want to get hit? No, and I take measures to ensure that does not happen to the best of my ability. But to chase like I do means that the risk is never going to be zero. Many of you are correct to say that the risk can only be zero if you stay FAR away to the point that you are in the nosebleed seats all the time. If that makes you happy, go for it. Not me! I'd venture to say that tour guests who have spent $6,000 to fly around the world to chase probably aren't so happy with that idea either.

You want zero risk? Stay 10 miles away and be happy with your zero-contrast shots that you have to torture in Photoshop to even prove you saw it. You want to see something better? Accept a less-than-zero risk.
Not sure I ever stated that they should be 10 miles away... and again, if that's not for you, go for it. But you are not responsible for the safety of dozen of people, so have at it. I'd like to think that in their situation, you'd consider taking a step or two back from your own aggressiveness out of consideration of that. Sure, some folks were probably thrilled from that experience, but I'd be willing to bet some good money that a few of them were less than happy to get chucked around like that. We obviously have not heard from their clients in regards to whether they felt they got their money's worth, so it may be a lofty assumption to say that a couple of those folks may not have enjoyed their little vacation all that much.

This is also being argued given the situation they were in. An HP storm, limited visibility, approaching a population center. This was not a highly visible, slow moving supercell in the middle of nowhere within a gridded road network.

Situational awareness... you call it coddling, I call it cautious. And again, throw in the situation at hand. No one has said be 10 miles away, and certainly it wasn't me. But there is a HUGE difference in being up close to a classic, highly visible, slow moving tornado verses blinding driving into an HP storm. That two miles means very different measures of safety in each of those situations. I don't care what your preference is for chasing on your own, but clearly that preference needs to change in a tour situation verses what you do solo.
 
Jan 14, 2011
2,941
2,753
21
St. Louis
stormhighway.com
I put together this map attempting to visualize the possible series of events depicted on the radar grabs that @Jeff Snyder posted above. The NWS survey track is partially faded out:

lawrence2.jpg

Quincy, from what I can tell from your video, the main base/meso wasn't completely rain wrapped just prior to the incident? In other words, the expectation was for that area to the northwest to be the area of concern. Was there ANY visual indication of something coming from the southwest?
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2011
2,941
2,753
21
St. Louis
stormhighway.com
Tony, my main point was that the tour guests pay for and expect the guides to deliver what they came to see, and that sense of obligation might put them into "greater than zero" risk situations that probably cross the threshold of sensibilities of the most conservative chasers. The expectation that chasing be a zero-risk affair - even for tours - seems unreasonable to me. I hate to bring up the cliche argument about whitewater rafting, mountain climbing and skiing, but it's valid.

Tours in general I'd expect have to try to find the balance in getting their guests what they paid for and keeping out of the most obvious dangers. That being said, the longer-running tours have managed to do this without major incident for quite a long time, and I don't believe any of them forfeit playing close when they are able to do so.

I would argue that playing the notch in an HP isn't necessarily the grave risk it's made out to be in every case. Higher than staying out ahead of the storm, sure. With a violent tornado in progress, or a chaser with limited experience, no, I wouldn't do it. But to my knowledge this storm had not produced anything significant up to this point.

Also, on another note, this isn't the first tour van tornado impact. On May 10, 2010, a Cloud 9 van guided by none other than Jim Leonard was hit by a tornado subvortex in Wakita, Oklahoma, breaking the windows in the van and giving some guests minor cuts and scratches.
 
Last edited:

Lou Ruh

EF2
May 17, 2007
197
49
11
SE PA
Tony, my main point was that the tour guests pay for and expect the guides to deliver what they came to see, and that sense of obligation might put them into "greater than zero" risk situations that probably cross the threshold of sensibilities of the most conservative chasers. The expectation that chasing be a zero-risk affair seems unreasonable to me, either for a tour group or an individual. I hate to bring up the cliche argument about whitewater rafting, mountain climbing and skiing, but it's valid.

Tours in general I'd expect have to try to find the balance in getting their guests what they paid for and keeping out of the most obvious dangers. That being said, the longer-running tours have managed to do this without incident for quite a long time, and I don't believe any of them forfeit playing close when they are able to do so.

Also, on another note, this isn't the first tour van tornado impact. On May 10, 2010, a Cloud 9 van guided by none other than Jim Leonard was hit by a tornado subvortex in Wakita, Oklahoma, breaking the windows in the van and giving some guests minor cuts and scratches.
And in 1998 a Cloud9 van (with me as a passenger) was hit by a nascent spinup (luckily with minimal damage except a little sandblasting of the van). Didn't stop me from chasing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Hall
Mar 2, 2004
2,335
519
11
Wichita, KS
www.facebook.com
Tony, my main point was that the tour guests pay for and expect the guides to deliver what they came to see, and that sense of obligation might put them into "greater than zero" risk situations that probably cross the threshold of sensibilities of the most conservative chasers. The expectation that chasing be a zero-risk affair seems unreasonable to me, either for a tour group or an individual. I hate to bring up the cliche argument about whitewater rafting, mountain climbing and skiing, but it's valid.

Tours in general I'd expect have to try to find the balance in getting their guests what they paid for and keeping out of the most obvious dangers. That being said, the longer-running tours have managed to do this without incident for quite a long time, and I don't believe any of them forfeit playing close when they are able to do so.

I would argue that playing the notch in an HP isn't necessarily the grave risk it's made out to be in every case. Higher than staying out ahead of the storm, sure. With a violent tornado in progress, no, I wouldn't do it. But to my knowledge this storm had not produced anything significant up to this point.

Also, on another note, this isn't the first tour van tornado impact. On May 10, 2010, a Cloud 9 van guided by none other than Jim Leonard was hit by a tornado subvortex in Wakita, Oklahoma, breaking the windows in the van and giving some guests minor cuts and scratches.
I absolutely get your point... they paid and have certain expectations. But you're glossing over my point entirely which is situational awareness. I obviously go skiing, but do you go winding through the trees when the winds are creating whiteout conditions or go for something more open? Okay, so yeah, maybe you do. Now, lets pretend for a moment you're a ski instructor, and you're taking a group of varied-experience individuals up there to ski. Sunny, nice day, maybe you do some trees, get into the deeper powder, etc. Are you going to take them through the trees when the visibility is limited? The winds are howling? The snow conditions aren't great. I mean, yes, they absolutely paid and have expectations, so does that trump situational awareness.

Do you mountain climb the same on a sunny day verses a stormy one? I hate to use your cliches, but don't you adjust your measures of safety based on the conditions at hand, or do you just have one set method and situational circumstances be damned? At what point do you say, hey, this ain't going to work and sorry folks, we can't blindly drive you into what we can't see.

Of course there is risk (I said that in my post). Never did I say ANYTHING about zero risk. You're completely glossing over my point, and not only that, are providing "cliche" activities to which I would HOPE one would take the situation into account before blinding rafting in a river, climbing a mountain, or skiing down mountain.

I recall Cloud 9's venture nine years ago. It's completely irrelevant to this situation. I do not recall anyone saying this is the first time a tour group has been impacted. I also recall a few years ago some farming equipment getting flipped into a tour van. So I believe this would be incident #3 (second being directly impacted). But all my references are specific to this incident.
 
Jan 14, 2011
2,941
2,753
21
St. Louis
stormhighway.com
Sure, I understand what you're saying. If they drove blindly in there with an ongoing EF4 and maxed-out couplet, they would deserve every bit of criticism coming. And they may still depending on what evidence emerges. But based on what I've seen so far, their position didn't seem entirely unreasonable for someone of their experience level. They were southeast of a northeast-moving meso that hadn't even produced yet, and from Quincy's video, it appeared that there was *some* visibility. The main point of contention is that some wouldn't put a tour group in the notch of an HP under any circumstance, which I see as the main point of disagreement.

And BTW I didn't mean to look as if I was singling you out Tony, this thread has gone viral with similar opinions expressed elsewhere and I felt the need to address the overall counter argument.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chris Frost

Shane Adams

I can't help but sense some out-of-place coddling of chase tour guests here. I'm not advocating taking unnecessary risks or being reckless with people in your care. But let's not act like a tour group is a bus full of nuns or school kids. These are people who are out there for the same reasons you and I are. I've met many of them. Many of them have "graduated" to being longtime independent chasers. Some are even active on ST. They want to see a tornado, to have the same experiences you and I like to have. That is what they signed up for and what they paid large amounts of money to do. The waivers tell them there is a remote chance that incidents just like this could happen.

Sure, you can see a tornado from 10 miles away and be 100% free from any risk of getting hit. But that style of chasing is unacceptable for me personally. I am not happy with that and will never be. It's like driving cross country to NYC to see the Statue of Liberty and end up with a hazy, low contrast view of it from across the bay and in between buildings. To me, that is simply lame. What's the point? I'm not being critical of those who ARE happy with that, just I'm always perplexed why some are acting like wanting to be close enough for good contrast, to see detailed motion, to hear the sound is so unreasonable.

Is there a risk? Yes. I accept the risk. Do I want to get hit? No, and I take measures to ensure that does not happen to the best of my ability. But to chase like I do means that the risk is never going to be zero. Many of you are correct to say that the risk can only be zero if you stay FAR away to the point that you are in the nosebleed seats all the time. If that makes you happy, go for it. Not me! I'd venture to say that tour guests who have spent $6,000 to fly around the world to chase probably aren't so happy with that idea either.

You want zero risk? Stay 10 miles away and be happy with your zero-contrast shots that you have to torture in Photoshop to even prove you saw it. You want to see something better? Accept a less-than-zero risk.
You don't have to be 10 miles away to be safe. You can be a mile away and be safe, and also get the contrast and motion you mentioned. Your statement about "ten miles away to be safe" is as blanket as the "chasing is dangerous" statement. Goddamn I wish someone would do a show and talk about this. There's sure as hell a lot of strong opinions out there being displayed.
 
Mar 2, 2004
2,335
519
11
Wichita, KS
www.facebook.com
Sure, I understand what you're saying. If they drove blindly in there with an ongoing EF4 and maxed-out couplet, they would deserve every bit of criticism coming. And they may still depending on what evidence emerges. But based on what I've seen so far, their position didn't seem entirely unreasonable for someone of their experience level. They were southeast of a northeast-moving meso that hadn't even produced yet, and from Quincy's video, it appeared that there was *some* visibility. The main point of contention is that some wouldn't put a tour group in the notch of an HP under any circumstance, which I see as the main point of disagreement.

And BTW I didn't mean to look as if I was singling you out Tony, this thread has gone viral with similar opinions expressed elsewhere and I felt the need to address the overall counter argument.
No singling out taken. This is a hot topic, deservingly so. And I'm just hopeful we start taking lessons from these incidents as they are on the increase, not only in numbers, but in impact. And its very concerning to me that these high-impact incidents are happening to those with the experience and longevity in this activity.
 
Jan 14, 2011
2,941
2,753
21
St. Louis
stormhighway.com
My thinking on why it's happening to the more experienced is that the newbies don't have a clue on how to get within 10 miles of a tornado. That is, if it's happening with anything but a slow-moving ultra-highly-visible classic supercell. As someone said in an earlier thread, they're back gawking at scud fingers on the tail end of the RFD gust front while the meso is 15 miles northeast of them. It takes a lot of skill and pinpoint chase execution to get close (within a mile) on a regular basis. I'm still not even that good at it myself, and manage it only a couple of times a year. If you have the experience, you know where to put yourself to see the action, many times before it even begins. The newbies are only going to find themselves there by sheer dumb luck. My first few Plains chases I was always behind fast moving storms, hopelessly out of position.

Shane, 10 miles may be a bit hyperbolic, I'll admit. But by some standards I've been hearing, not so much. Everyone has an opinion on what is "close". For me, it's my DDC and Bennington days where I reached within 1/3 mile. For some that's pretty tame. For others, it's reckless.
 
Last edited:
Oct 31, 2013
449
375
21
Eastern TX Panhandle
So which is it? A simple double standard with which free passes are reserved exclusively for the famous/popular, or are people so desensitized to these accidents they simply no longer care or are angered by irresponsibility?
This is a great point. I honestly think the famous/popular chasers are given a free ride, and IMO it's a crying shame.
 

Warren Faidley

Supporter
May 7, 2006
1,917
1,946
21
Mos Isley Space Port
www.stormchaser.com
I'm no longer famous and certainly not popular since I no longer grant interviews and often rage at the circus that has become storm chasing. Regardless, I still want people to call me out when I do something stupid as I am not above any other chaser. Doswell did that a few times and I listened. To be honest, it irritates the hell out of me to see a few idiots getting away with all kinds of stunts without any chastising from the media or other chasers. Where the hell is the angry media and so-called "writers" who hounded me years ago for things I never did or said? Where are the "anti-chaser" / slanderous comments from TWC that caused me so much financial disruption? If I had pulled some of the current stunts 20 years ago, I would have been totally banished from the storm chasing world. Now days, it's totally acceptable behavior. :mad::confused::)
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2017
105
86
11
Joplin, MO & Iowa City, IA
Reed Timmer's book includes a story about a German exchange student who wanted to go storm chasing. When they encountered a massive tornado in South Dakota (Manchester?), the guy turned into a sobbing basket case.

Do tour companies screen potential clients to weed out the folks at both extremes of risk-taking? It's one thing to sign a release and be warned, to *think* they're ready for up-close-and-personal. It is quite another to *be* in that situation. Do the companies run different types of tours to accomodate varying tolerances of risk? It's easy to imagine a situation in which half the passengers want to go in closer and the other half want to back off as far as Montreal.
 

Robert Reynolds

Enthusiast
Aug 2, 2009
7
17
1
Blue Springs, MO
Quincy, from what I can tell from your video, the main base/meso wasn't completely rain wrapped just prior to the incident? In other words, the expectation was for that area to the northwest to be the area of concern. Was there ANY visual indication of something coming from the southwest?
I can't speak for Quincy....I can only relate our experience to this storm. It's definitely one I will never forget and will constantly learn from. We were very close to being another statistic of this storm.

We were focused on the area of circulation to the WNW of Lone Star Lake and headed north on E. 550 Rd. It didn't seem to be overly concerning at the time, both visually and on radar (more on that in a minute). About N. 500 Rd, we encountered heavy bands of rain and wind. Our radar still showed the area of concern was just to our north, so we assumed it must be RFD. At 6:02 pm, I have the 4 vans on my dashcam headed south at the intersection of E. 550 Rd and N. 600 Rd (that's the road that curves along the south end of Lone Star Lake). We followed a truck in front of us into the parking lot of the church just north of the intersection. About that time, I noticed my data signal was poor and the radar had not updated. We didn't really like where we were at and had a gut feeling something was not right, but we still assumed the circulation just to the north was intensifying. We opted to head east on N. 600 Rd - we were likely only a minute or two behind Quincy. This paved road transitioned to dirt. At 6:05 pm, in heavy rain and poor visibility, we saw debris floating in the air, and a second later the tornado appeared in the field just off the right front of our truck - it was so rain-wrapped we couldn't see it until we were right on it (the dashcam actually shows better visibility and contrast than what we had).


A few minutes after that, our data signal improved and the radar suddenly updated, showing an strong intense couplet very close to our location. As soon as we were able to get phone reception, we called Douglas County 911 and gave the first confirmation of a tornado on the ground on the south end of Lone Star Lake, headed NE.


We tried to continue east, but the road was blocked by tree damage. We turned around with the intention of heading back to 56 Hwy, and ultimately came upon the vans that had been rolled. We stopped to check on them, finding only minor injuries. There was a number of people already stopped to assist and EMS was on it's way, so we continued on as the storm intensified.

My chase partner and I are not high-profile chasers - we aren't reckless or extreme, and we are not meteorologists. I religiously follow this forum and other media, but rarely participate. But we are not new to the game either....I have 10+ years of chasing and my partner has 20+. His wife was with us and also has multiple years of chasing. We had no firm indication from our perspective that anything had developed to our southwest and was moving in on us. The lag in radar data really led us to the false assumption that we were still south of the area of concern, hence our reason to head east. I'm curious if anyone else in the area had issues with reception like we did. I have dashcam video in the minutes leading up to this that I would also be happy to share....it will take a couple days for me to get it posted due to a family event this weekend. Hopefully there can be a lot to learn from this situation so that it doesn't repeat itself in the future. 35397_e3f86112f20ab50d8081b868693d057c.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jesse Risley

Staff member
Apr 12, 2006
2,178
617
11
40
Macomb, IL
www.tornadoguys.com
I'm curious if anyone else in the area had issues with reception like we did. I have dashcam video in the minutes leading up to this that I would also be happy to share....it will take a couple days for me to get it posted due to a family event this weekend. Hopefully there can be a lot to learn from this situation so that it doesn't repeat itself in the future.
There were reception issues, more so from the standpoint that upload and download speeds were stunted on VZW. That isn't necessarily rare, however, for these types of situations, as I assume towers become saturated as chasers converge on the area, every local tries to stream the news sites or get radar data, and hoards of passerby travelers stop to seek shelter. I stopped and went west on N1000 and Hwy 59. The biggest visual clue for me was the shifting direction of the winds from N to S and the near violent motion of the rain band curtains as the RFD surged ENE.

18576
 
Jan 16, 2009
668
709
21
Kansas City
I put together this map attempting to visualize the possible series of events depicted on the radar grabs that @Jeff Snyder posted above. The NWS survey track is partially faded out:

View attachment 18572

Quincy, from what I can tell from your video, the main base/meso wasn't completely rain wrapped just prior to the incident? In other words, the expectation was for that area to the northwest to be the area of concern. Was there ANY visual indication of something coming from the southwest?
We witnessed wind shifts along 56 highway east of Overbrook but could not see anything visually. That is where the first tornado started that eventually merged.
 

Warren Faidley

Supporter
May 7, 2006
1,917
1,946
21
Mos Isley Space Port
www.stormchaser.com
I'm always cautious about shows and productions about chasing, especially those produced by chasers. It's such a small community, the productions are often self-censored to avoid retaliation and flaming. The recent production about the history of chasing was a good example, and I refused to participate when the producer refused to expose the clowns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.