Amateur storm chasers cause headaches for emergency spotters

[Jay Farlow]

... amateur radio is not dead as a reporting method, and most nets/EMs in the Plains, Midwest and South would greatly welcome information from experienced chasers via this medium. There really is a void right now that could be filled by us (by "us", I mean storm chasers).

I was happy to draw a similar conclusion. Even though I've been a ham for decades, I had begun to wonder about ham radio's future in storm spotting, especially here in Indiana, where cell coverage is pretty good. We have an added challenge in the IWX CWA. If a volunteer ham is not available to staff the ham station at the WFO, it remains off the air and the various nets must use NWSChat or telephone to relay reports from ham-radio-equipped spotters. Our WFO is not located near a population center (it's an hour drive from either Fort Wayne or South Bend), which limits the number of hams who are available to go to the WFO.

 

[Nick Copeland]

[QUOTE="Randy Jennings, post: 343190, member: 3315"@Justin Reed If you have time it might be interesting if your pulled the Brodcastify recording of the W5FC repeater in Dallas on Dec. 26th, 2015. The Garland EF4 tornado warning was around 6:45 PM CST. This is the storm where 8 people where killed when the tornado crossed I-30, and listening to that net again would be enlightening. Full disclosure - you will hear me reporting power flashes in another area of Dallas from the left split of the storm.

I pulled the audio and unfortunately the feed provider has a major problem and the only audio captured is 60 cycle hum throughout the first two hours that I checked.[/QUOTE]


@Randy Jennings I can post my video from the event since I was the one who reported the tornado on the 88 machine and was giving full updates and was the only one. I assume you were the one reporting the power flashes of the Garland tornado all the way from Greenville Ave that prevent my further transmissions to be delayed?

I would be real careful how much praise you give Dallas RACES though. They are another organization that will be in the spot light before long and @Greg Higgins will be the first to tell you as well. Let's see April 2012 they wouldn't take a report from a Texas RACES member, that is a STATE official about a tornado lofting 52' trailers in the air, just last spring they told Micheal from the NWS Radio Desk he had to stand down they were in the middle of a traffic net while he was trying to get them to activate due to warning issued for the county.

Like I mentioned earlier, ARES has always been opened to lic operators and always has. I just think it is really sad that one group has caused it to have to be put in writing officially.

@rdale No, there is no such thing as a "private repeater". They only way a trustee can have someone removed is if they are in violation of the rules set forth by the trustee in alignment with FCC rules. What these letters don't show or tell is that the trustee has presented evidence against an operator for abuse of the repeater and/or violation of FCC rules. FCC will not issue a warning just based on requests. There has to be evidence presented that shows they are in violation of the rules.

 

[rdale]

Hey Jay - nice to see you here!

For those who missed out on last night's WeatherBrains - you must tune in. I think Nate's comment towards the beginning summed it all up: It's the annual "let's make some drama and have a fight" event. Were there some small issues at play that combined to make it sound worse? Yup. Small town newspaper with a few hundred regular readers that whipped up things into a frenzy with no lasting impact? Yup.

I know there will be a cry from some that this spells the end of chasing, or the world is against us, etc. but that happens every year too and there still are no chase laws, no national chase organizations, and the NWS still takes chaser reports. Carry on and let the ornery dog die peacefully

 

[Dan Robinson]

I was happy to draw a similar conclusion. Even though I've been a ham for decades, I had begun to wonder about ham radio's future in storm spotting, especially here in Indiana, where cell coverage is pretty good. We have an added challenge in the IWX CWA. If a volunteer ham is not available to staff the ham station at the WFO, it remains off the air and the various nets must use NWSChat or telephone to relay reports from ham-radio-equipped spotters. Our WFO is not located near a population center (it's an hour drive from either Fort Wayne or South Bend), which limits the number of hams who are available to go to the WFO.

Exactly. In my discussions with others this week, one thing that stood out is learning that the person who activates the sirens is sometimes sitting right there next to the net controller. If there is an emergency situation, it eliminates any delays in relaying the critical information to the decision makers.

This reminds me of the crying mom on TV who swears to God her son did not murder someone even though the entire event was captured on a hidden camera.

Ironically, we HAVE video and it doesn't show things to be like you're describing. If what you're saying is true, the perception problem is just from the TV show, because it simply isn't happening like that out in the field. Unless we're all somehow just missing all of the chaos and mayhem every time we go out. Again, we all agree on the few idiots and the rare traffic issues. So why not just focus on them, instead of calling it a systemic problem in the community like all the articles do? That doesn't do the community any favors, it just feeds the media trolls.

 

[Jay Farlow]

No, there is no such thing as a "private repeater". They only way a trustee can have someone removed is if they are in violation of the rules set forth by the trustee in alignment with FCC rules. What these letters don't show or tell is that the trustee has presented evidence against an operator for abuse of the repeater and/or violation of FCC rules. FCC will not issue a warning just based on requests. There has to be evidence presented that shows they are in violation of the rules.

Nick, a publication of the ARRL would disagree with your assertion: "Most repeaters are open -- that is, available for use by anyone in range. Some repeaters, however, have limited access. Their use is restricted to exclusive groups, such as members of a club. Such closed repeaters require the transmission of a continuous subaudible tone or a short "burst" of tones for access." (http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/repeater1.pdf)

The FCC, in a warning letter to a ham, writes that repeater control operators "may take whatever steps they deem appropriate to ensure compliance with the repeater rules, including limiting the repeater use to certain users, converting the repeater to a closed repeater or taking it off the air entirely." (emphasis mine) (http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/files/Chris13_09_23_5360.html).
The language the FCC chose explicitly indicates the permissability of a "closed" (private) repeater.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, it's helpful to remember that repeater equipment is privately owned (with the exception of rare, municipally-funded systems). The FCC has consistently upheld the rights of repeater owners to choose who uses their equipment. The regulations do not prohibit transmitting on a closed repeater's input frequency (except when such transmissions would cause illegal interference with other stations) but transmitting on the frequency of a closed repeater while sending the tone code that activates that equipment can constitute unauthorized use of the repeater equipment, which the FCC can treat as a violation, even if the operator violates no other rules with his transmission.

Repeaters cost money to install and operate. It seems reasonable to me to allow, for example, only club members who help pay for a repeater to use it, although that is fortunately not common practice.

What seems less reasonable to me is to conduct a spotter net on a repeater that's not open to the public.

 

[Jay Farlow]

Exactly. In my discussions with others this week, one thing that stood out is learning that the person who activates the sirens is sometimes sitting right there next to the net controller. If there is an emergency situation, it eliminates any delays in relaying the critical information to the decision makers.

Of course, that situation often leads to another issue entirely; unilateral activation or outdoor warning sirens without NWS or news media notification. I've seen several examples of that within our CWA.

Ironically, in the most populated county in my area, the local EMA does not routinely open its EOC during severe weather events. Spotter reports go straight to the WFO and the EMA doesn't even know about them, unless the one EMA staff member who is a ham happens to be monitoring. This is by the choice of the local emergency manager.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Exactly. In my discussions with others this week, one thing that stood out is learning that the person who activates the sirens is sometimes sitting right there next to the net controller. If there is an emergency situation, it eliminates any delays in relaying the critical information to the decision makers.

Ironically, we HAVE video and it doesn't show things to be like you're describing. If what you're saying is true, the perception problem is just from the TV show, because it simply isn't happening like that out in the field. Unless we're all somehow just missing all of the chaos and mayhem every time we go out. Again, we all agree on the few idiots and the rare traffic issues. So why not just focus on them, instead of calling it a systemic problem in the community like all the articles do? That doesn't do the community any favors, it just feeds the media trolls.

This is not a problem caused by the majority of chasers. It stems from both locals and a philosophy that has attached itself to the chase community like a cancer. The average chaser did not create the current atmosphere where people are disgusted with the way they perceive chasers and chasing. This was done by individual(s) via mass-and-social-media and the chase communities' lack of nipping it in the bud. The comments made by Mr. Walker show an over all disrespect and mistrust for all chasers, which is wrong, as most of us are good, honest people. This started out as a discussion about ham radio and a lot has been resolved due to efforts like yours. But it opened a window allowing the core issue to become visible. Nothing will change the way a lot of people think about chasers (like Mr. Walker) until we decide to admit there are problems and problem people. This reminds me of the President's lack of using the words "Islamic Extremists," because he does not want to offend anyone. Or the (fictional) fear of using the word "Voldemort." Until we are willing to call out chasers individually for the misleading / fake behavior that destroys trust in our community - like we do for stupid road antics and light bars, then we are doomed to an increasing number of editorials like Mr. Walkers. It's coming.... trust me.

 

[Derek S Baker]

Re: "While I prefer that nets be open, I don't have too much of an issue with a closed net as long as they are respectful and allow emergency reports."

While I understand that some (many?) net controllers receive instructions or specific training re: how to filter reports before passing them along, IMHO the folks who are most qualified to make a decision re: significance & veracity of a report are the NWS meteorologists themselves. Since NWS meteorologists make the judgement calls with all reports phoned/reported directly to their office, it seems reasonable to me that they are the ones who should be filtering reports that have coming through ham frequencies, not the net controllers.

This is not meant to disrespect any net controllers, because I do admire the challenging job they have & the crucial role they play in the interests of public safety. I just see the potential for problems if some reports are filtered by the net controller before reaching the local NWS office & some not being assessed/filtered until an NWS meteorologist sees them. Of course, blatantly erroneous or malicious reports need not be passed on to the NWS (but documented & saved nonetheless), but if a net controller is even slightly unsure whether or not a report constitutes an emergency, the report should be passed on. This also brings into question the wisdom of asking net controllers of "closed nets" to make the call re: whether or not a report is an emergency & whether or not the person doing the report is knowledgeable & experienced. (the recent incident with the closed net in Wichita Falls suggests that spotters/chasers who are not part of the closed net are not well known to the net controller at all). I would think the wisest policy is for the local NWS office to be the only quarterback of the emergency services/public warning team.

All said with due respect.

It is true that the Dallas County operates as a closed RACES net, but they do accept any reports that are imminent threat to life or property and are much more respectful about asking other stations to stand by. The following is an excerpt from their website ( http://www.dallasraces.org/news-and-announcements/netcontrolstationsandthebadthingtm ) providing instructions for net controllers:



In spring of 2015, I did hear Daniel try to check into (not make a report) to the Dallas RACES Skywarn net, and the controller respectfully asked him to stand by unless he had a report that was "an imminent threat to life or property". During the Dec. 26, 2015 Garland EF4 tornado, I heard the net controller say something like "do we have any station that has eyes on this storm, even if you are not a RACES station?" While I prefer that nets be open, I don't have too much of an issue with a closed net as long as they are respectful and allow emergency reports.

I'm sure someone will say they were treated poorly while trying to make a report on the Dallas net. I know some net controllers have a broader interpretation of "imminent threat" than others do (and Dallas changes net control out every hour). My point is that I think Dallas RACES leadership is trying to do the right thing.

@Justin Reed If you have time it might be interesting if your pulled the Brodcastify recording of the W5FC repeater in Dallas on Dec. 26th, 2015. The Garland EF4 tornado warning was around 6:45 PM CST. This is the storm where 8 people where killed when the tornado crossed I-30, and listening to that net again would be enlightening. Full disclosure - you will hear me reporting power flashes in another area of Dallas from the left split of the storm.

 

[Nick Copeland]

Nick, a publication of the ARRL would disagree with your assertion: "Most repeaters are open -- that is, available for use by anyone in range. Some repeaters, however, have limited access. Their use is restricted to exclusive groups, such as members of a club. Such closed repeaters require the transmission of a continuous subaudible tone or a short "burst" of tones for access." (http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/repeater1.pdf)

I am fully aware of how a repeater works. I have been a radio operator for 14 yrs. I really do not care what ARRL might think or disagrees with since they are not the governing body. ARRL is just a radio cult who suck the money out of those in the hobby who do not know better and try to get rich off the hobby then say they are on your side.

The FCC, in a warning letter to a ham, writes that repeater control operators "may take whatever steps they deem appropriate to ensure compliance with the repeater rules, including limiting the repeater use to certain users, converting the repeater to a closed repeater or taking it off the air entirely." (emphasis mine) (http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/files/Chris13_09_23_5360.html).
The language the FCC chose explicitly indicates the permissability of a "closed" (private) repeater.

I think you're mistaken by their choice of words in regards to "closed" repeater when used in terms of violation. As stated in the letter "The written request was issued as a result of your failure to follow operational rules set forth by the licensee/control operators of the repeater system for their users." As I mentioned earlier. A trustee must file evidence that their repeater is being abused and that the said station is in violation of FCC guidelines set forth for their license class and is creating a nuisance. That is what you're not seeing in that letter and is not mentioned. Warning letters prove nothing. It doesn't outline what violations the station has committed nor the evidence brought forth against them. If there is such a station causing a disturbance a control operator may take those measures but, all other times it is an open repeater regardless who paid for it. No one made them put it up and as long as a station is following the rules of the repeater set forth by the trustee or club and following FCC rules for their class they can operate on any repeater.

You will be hard pressed to find a hard set rule by the FCC that states a "closed" repeater is allowed. In fact, it is just the opposite as they must remain open to any lic operator for emergency use. Auto patches, are a different story and can be restricted to club members only but, honestly. You won't find or will be very hard pressed to find auto patches these days so that is really irrelevant.

 

[TJ Whitt]

ARRL is just a radio cult who suck the money out of those in the hobby who do not know better and try to get rich off the hobby then say they are on your side.

ROFL! Such ignorance but hey, it's just an opinion.

 

[TJ Whitt]

You will be hard pressed to find a hard set rule by the FCC that states a "closed" repeater is allowed. In fact, it is just the opposite as they must remain open to any lic operator for emergency use.

Hmmmm, a quick search for repeaters in Texas show open, closed, and private repeaters.

 

[Shawn Gossman]

I've consider getting ham radio certified before but all this stuff kind of scares me away from it, it seems like there are more ways to get "in trouble" with it than to actually enjoy it!

 

[Jay Farlow]

I've consider getting ham radio certified before but all this stuff kind of scares me away from it, it seems like there are more ways to get "in trouble" with it than to actually enjoy it!

Go for it, Shawn. The rules aren't really all that hard to understand or follow. Most hams aren't jerks. You'll do fine. Let me know if I can help.

 

[Jim Duyck]

And ARES is back. FWIW...

 

[Derek S Baker]

One of the things I noticed when last evening's WeatherBrains panel discussed the incident involving Daniel Shaw & the Wichita Falls ARES is that they just don't know Daniel. The same thing can be said regarding the Wichita Falls ARES & certainly the author of the three amateurish articles in the local newspaper. So, for starters, here's a video of Daniel on national television in Australia. This is who he is & who the old boys club in Wichita Falls club has been smearing (reproduced with permission):

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1101080146592107