Amateur storm chasers cause headaches for emergency spotters

[Lou Ruh]

Randy, under what rule do they do this? Back when I was AZ OOC (a while ago), there was no rule granting any privileges to close repeater. It was good etiquette to adhere to the owner's wishes, but no FCC violation.

I can see a couple of possibilities, but not for just being on a repeater one has been warned off of:

1) Interference - someone interferes with others on the repeater (i.e. jams their signal)
2) Interference with emergency traffic - I suppose that might including disrupting rather than actually jamming an emergency net, but I don't know
3) Civil liability for using someone's equipment without their permission.

When I was a net control of Hurricane Watch Net, we had a terrible time getting the FCC to go after anyone except under two conditions:
1) They jammed signals
2) They were operating after a temporary FCC declaration of an emergency frequency (The FCC would designate 14.320-14.330 as reserved for us only, on a few exceptional events).

Obviously, things may have changed, Hence my question.

Hi John ... § 97.205 (e) includes the statement "Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible."

 

[Warren Faidley]

sad no one including Warren , brought up local yahoo's being mistaken as storm chasers . that is the bigger problem !

I did mention inexperienced locals as being the number one problem re: traffic issues to both the reporter and earlier in the discussion I believe. But it's good to make that point clear -- because out of area chasers are often blamed when locals are the biggest problem. Good luck fixing that! I did not not have a single problem with any established chasers I know of during El Reno, but the hoards of locals going nuts like drunk monkeys on Munitions Island was more frightening than the storm at times.

 

[Mike Marz]

Well, I am sure many of you have already seen this, but in case you hadn't, this is a quote from Daniel Shaw's storm chasing Facebook page.

"
The past few days have seen a vast amount of comments and controversy regarding my storm spotting activity in the Wichita Falls area in Texas.

This area runs a closed net, and in good faith, I believed due to the storm conditions my reporting to their coordinator prior to submitting any reports justified my transmitting on their net due to public safety concerns.

This action has created such a backlash with many people expressing strong reaction on both sides of the argument.

The Wichita County ARES volunteers are highly regarded for their dedication to public safety, and in this case, there has been a misunderstanding of acceptable procedure on my part, and I wish to offer my deep apology.

Australians have long considered American citizens as distant relatives rather than foreigners, and although we are descendants from the same stock, there are cultural differences than can be easily overlooked.

Whilst I have proudly contributed over the years to the reporting of life threatening storm activity across much of the country, this recent incident and stress associated with the ongoing dispute of opinions has caused me to make a very hard decision.

I have made the decision to cease spotting and reporting operations, and instead concentrate on my passion for sharing my adventures in a more relaxed and less stressful way.

Nevertheless, when I am faced with tornadic activity, if approached by the National Weather Service, Emergency Management, or Local Authorities, I will always prioritise their needs to protect the communities I hold dear to my heart.

Daniel Shaw

"

Good for him. Bad for towns in tornado alley, and honestly all over the country. Obviously there are other skilled spotters/chasers out there who can help tell the ground truth, but it doesn't help to lose one of them due to this silliness...

 

[Nick Copeland]

Hi John ... § 97.205 (e) includes the statement "Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible."

That doesn't give a trustee or control operator the right to close or restrict users. You have to include the rest of that statement above as it has been misquoted.

Section 97.205(e) merely enables a repeater licensee or control operator to control the repeater so that he or she can ensure the repeater is properly operated as required by Section 97.105(a)

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2002-title47-vol5-sec97-105.pdf

Unless they are violating what @John Moore stated that is the only way FCC can intervene. ARES nets are opened to any licensed amateur radio operator and no control operator or trustee can restrict a station from transmitting on a directed net unless they are in violation of FCC rules for operation under the rules of emergency operation for directed nets. Any operator still has to adhere to FCC rules when it relates to Part 97 for emergency operations and directed nets. RACES on the other hand, is only open to RACES appointees within their jurisdiction under Sec. 97.407 and not any licensed amateur radio operator like in ARES nets and there are FCC rules against transmitting on a directed net under Part 97 during RACES operation when you are not a RACES appointee. ARES though, they cannot restrict ANY stations or close a repeater unless they are violating specific FCC rules.

At first glance, RACES and ARES appear to be duplicate groups. There are key differences between the groups. A RACES operation may be restricted by FCC rules that do not apply to an ARES operation. In certain circumstances, a RACES operation may be allowed when an ARES operation is not.

What are the differences?

Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES)

Under FCC rules, RACES is provided specific radio frequencies on which amateurs, registered with state and local Civil Preparedness agencies, would continue operating in the event Emergency War Powers were invoked or a nationally declared disaster occurred.

Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES)

ARES is sponsored by the American Radio Relay League to provide supplementary or emergency communications for public service purposes other than Civil Preparedness agencies. Agencies served include American Red Cross, Salvation Army, National Weather Service, and local police, fire and emergency management agencies.

Therefore ANY licensed radio operator is permitted on ARES net as long as they are not violating the rules set fort by the FCC for directed nets and following the net procedures. The one thing that is not noted in this article is what they were supposedly violating if any but, a closed repeater doesn't exist. Directed nets, yes. Also regardless ARES or RACES as outlined in Sec. 97.403 "No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radio communication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available."

Like I said and I agree with others, this county owes some apologies and they need to stop being butt hurt.

 

[John Moore]

Hi John ... § 97.205 (e) includes the statement "Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible."

Yes, but. That just means you can PL or otherwise control your repeater so people cannot get in. It does not prohibit anyone from using those repeaters.

And I re-iterate - I do not use repeaters against the wishes of the owner, closed or otherwise.

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

Well, I am sure many of you have already seen this, but in case you hadn't, this is a quote from Daniel Shaw's storm chasing Facebook page.

"
The past few days have seen a vast amount of comments and controversy regarding my storm spotting activity in the Wichita Falls area in Texas.

This area runs a closed net, and in good faith, I believed due to the storm conditions my reporting to their coordinator prior to submitting any reports justified my transmitting on their net due to public safety concerns.

This action has created such a backlash with many people expressing strong reaction on both sides of the argument.

The Wichita County ARES volunteers are highly regarded for their dedication to public safety, and in this case, there has been a misunderstanding of acceptable procedure on my part, and I wish to offer my deep apology.

Australians have long considered American citizens as distant relatives rather than foreigners, and although we are descendants from the same stock, there are cultural differences than can be easily overlooked.

Whilst I have proudly contributed over the years to the reporting of life threatening storm activity across much of the country, this recent incident and stress associated with the ongoing dispute of opinions has caused me to make a very hard decision.

I have made the decision to cease spotting and reporting operations, and instead concentrate on my passion for sharing my adventures in a more relaxed and less stressful way.

Nevertheless, when I am faced with tornadic activity, if approached by the National Weather Service, Emergency Management, or Local Authorities, I will always prioritise their needs to protect the communities I hold dear to my heart.

Daniel Shaw

"

Good for him. Bad for towns in tornado alley, and honestly all over the country. Obviously there are other skilled spotters/chasers out there who can help tell the ground truth, but it doesn't help to lose one of them due to this silliness...

Wow. I've really enjoyed Daniels videos and streams, not only for his skill as a chaser, but listening to how good he is at spotting and communicating via radio. When he's spotting, it's like you're there with him.

Hopefully he continues with great commentary and information on the fly, but also good for him for just trying to enjoy something he cares for so passionately.

 

[Randy Jennings]

@Nick Copeland you are correct that only quoting the last sentence of §97.205 (e) “Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible” is misleading. The first sentence says “Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled functions of the station.” One could reasonably argue that that second statement doesn’t mean closed repeaters are allowed, only that things like closed autopatchs are. However, the FCC has a long history of enforcement that not only allows closed repeaters, but also allows trustees and control operators to ban anyone from a given repeater for any reason – or even no reason – at all.

Take for example the warning notice found at: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/files/Anoth13_09_23_5358.html:

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.Please be advised that the Commission expects you to abide by the request of the control operator that you stay off of K9KAO - and any other similar requests to cease operations on any other repeaters by any other repeater licensees, control operators or trustees.

There are dozens of other warning letters with similar wording. The FCC has repeatly taken the stance that while the frequency belongs to the public (§97.101 (d) “No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station”), the repeater equipment is private and the control operator can restrict who uses it. While they can’t keep you from transmitting on the input frequency, if you use the repeater’s PL tone you can be found in violation after repeated notices to stay off.

There is an exception found in §97.403 that says “No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.” While this rule is often quoted as allowing any licensee to make a emergency report, it is important to note that the last sentence that says “when normal communication systems are not available”.

As Nick noted, ARES Skywarn nets are directed nets. The concept of a directed net is not mentioned in Part 97. However, it is amateur radio custom in a directed net that the net controller coordinates who can talk and in what turn. As Phil Frost posts out in a well written post at http://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/4878/, not following “good amateur practice” is itself a violation of § 97.101 (a).

I suspect that Wichita County ARES would argue that chasers that transmit on “their” frequency are causing interfere in violation of §97.101 (d) because chasers are endangering “the functioning of … safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations” (definition of Harmful interference in § 97.3 (23) ).

I should also note that while most ARES nets are open to all licensed amateurs, not all ARES nets are. Each local ARES group can set its own requirements for participation in their nets. According to http://www.arrl.org/ares : “The Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) consists of licensed amateurs who have voluntarily registered their qualifications and equipment, with their local ARES leadership, for communications duty in the public service when disaster strikes.” Checking into a net isn’t considered “registering”. Some local ARES groups have rules very similar to RACES groups and require registration, background checks, and specialized training. At the start of the Wichita County ARES net in question one can tell they even have a trainee requirement where new members have to be paired up with experienced members before they can participate in a Skywarn net solo.

The concept of closed repeaters and nets is rehashed over and over again on the internet. I’m not trying to defend what the net controller for Wichita County ARES did. I strongly disagree with closed repeaters and I strongly believe that all Skywarn nets should take emergency reports. I’m simply trying to say no matter how much we dislike it or how we interpret the FCC rules, closed repeaters and nets are allowed under current FCC rules. If we don’t like it, we need to start lobbying the FCC and Congress to change that.

I hope Daniel will reconsider and keep reporting. We need all the knowledgeable chasers and spotters we can. For every net that doesn’t want Daniel’s reports, there are many other that do.

 

[Dan Robinson]

It's been really enlightening seeing the response from a lot of the spotter community. The true colors really come out. Take this forum thread:

http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/storm-chasers-causing-problems-in-n-tx.519072/

I've rarely, if ever, seen chasers disparaging spotters. We've for the most part always acknowledged the importance of their role. The inverse, however, has rarely been true. There is clearly a Dunning-Kruger effect prevalent. Not only has this event done more to seal the irrelevancy of HAM nets in the warning process, it's really going to impact how supportive the chase community has been of their side. I'm now, more than ever, glad I never put time or money into a HAM license, and I'm absolutely never going to consider it now.

Again, I won't necessarily broadbrush them like they do us, but it has really been difficult to find much support for our side among their ranks.

 

[samuel stone]

BOY I TELL YA THOSE DAMN FOREIGNERS... ALWAYS TRYIN TA MESS WITH OUR GOINS ONS..... THEY AINT GOT NOTHIN IN MIND BUT THEMSELVES... BUNCHA NO GOODS IF YA ASK ME!!!

 

[Dan Robinson]

From the NYU Journalism Handbook (http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/potential-conflicts-of-interest/)

Writing about friends and family members: Most newspapers bar reporters from writing about, or including quotes from friends or family members, although there may be some exceptions, if the reporter is open about it. In an autobiography or memoir, obviously it is fine. Even here, however, there is an obligation: the writer should be transparent and stipulate the relationship, whatever form that may take. When a reporter is sent out to sample opinion or find an expert, those sources should not be relations, unless the journalist can honestly claim the relationship won’t sway what he writes one way or the other. In other words, would the reporter pull punches because he's a friend of the source? That's why it is usually a good idea to stay clear of using friends and relatives in articles in most instances.

I sent this email to USA Today:

Dear USA Today:

I'm writing in regards to a recent story syndicated on your nationwide feed entitled "Amateur Storm Chasers Cause Headaches for Emergency Spotters" which is linked below.

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news...f2-d006-15ea-e053-0100007fe712-375297941.html

The author of the story is Lynn Walker from the Wichita Falls Times Record News. I'm writing to make you aware that the author/reporter has been discovered to be the best friend of the HAM radio spotter net coordinator that prompted, and it quoted in, the story.

In light of USA Today's presumed value of the standards of journalistic ethics regarding stories that end up on your national feeds, I felt this issue should be brought to your attention.

I have been maintaining a blog post on this story, and the incident that prompted it, here:

http://stormhighway.com/blog2016/april1316a.php

The blog post has links to actual radio transmissions and relevant videos to debunk many of the claims in the article.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information.

Thank you,
Dan Robinson
http://stormhighway.com

 

[samuel stone]

In the link Dan posted, a poster talks about the chasers killed at El Reno, he says "they were supposedly "researchers" "...

Doesn't even know who Tim Samaras is AND attempts to put into question his significance... and/or justification for being out there....

I really need to stop reading into this topic or I may become homocidal

 

[samuel stone]

From the NYU Journalism Handbook (http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/potential-conflicts-of-interest/)



I sent this email to USA Today:

Its really quite similar to incest...

 

[Greg Higgins]

Also, it's been discovered that there are FCC regulations requiring spotter net frequencies to remain open for reports from all who check in. Can anyone clarify? I'm contacting the FCC to get their take.

Per the FCC, Part 97 (and I'm paraphrasing)...IF a amateur radio / emergency manager group "CHOSES" to operate under the RACES (Radio Amateur Emergency Radio Service, which is a TOTALLY diffident animal from Amateur Radio Emergency Service which is an Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL) program) then ONLY those radio operators affiliated with that RACES organization may transmit on that frequency. The City of Dallas does this also during severe weather events. As a radio operator at the Fort Worth Dallas NWS, I can't tell you how frustrating this is as we (the NWS) NEED those reports and we really don't care who they are coming from. On a side note, from our experience, "chasers" do not contact the NWS with reports via amateur radio (and I'm speaking ONLY for the FWD office). There are many of you that can attest that we have called your cell phone (provided through Spotter Network) and asked for conformation of what you are seeing based on your GPS position and radar overlay or because we are watching your streaming video.

 

[Brad Dormer]

Well, I am sure many of you have already seen this, but in case you hadn't, this is a quote from Daniel Shaw's storm chasing Facebook page.

"
The past few days have seen a vast amount of comments and controversy regarding my storm spotting activity in the Wichita Falls area in Texas.

This area runs a closed net, and in good faith, I believed due to the storm conditions my reporting to their coordinator prior to submitting any reports justified my transmitting on their net due to public safety concerns.

This action has created such a backlash with many people expressing strong reaction on both sides of the argument.

The Wichita County ARES volunteers are highly regarded for their dedication to public safety, and in this case, there has been a misunderstanding of acceptable procedure on my part, and I wish to offer my deep apology.

Australians have long considered American citizens as distant relatives rather than foreigners, and although we are descendants from the same stock, there are cultural differences than can be easily overlooked.

Whilst I have proudly contributed over the years to the reporting of life threatening storm activity across much of the country, this recent incident and stress associated with the ongoing dispute of opinions has caused me to make a very hard decision.

I have made the decision to cease spotting and reporting operations, and instead concentrate on my passion for sharing my adventures in a more relaxed and less stressful way.

Nevertheless, when I am faced with tornadic activity, if approached by the National Weather Service, Emergency Management, or Local Authorities, I will always prioritise their needs to protect the communities I hold dear to my heart.

Daniel Shaw

"

Good for him. Bad for towns in tornado alley, and honestly all over the country. Obviously there are other skilled spotters/chasers out there who can help tell the ground truth, but it doesn't help to lose one of them due to this silliness...

This makes me sad, I look forward to his stream every year and I watch it whenever its live, no matter what time, he is one of the people who got me into spotting and chasing...

 

[Jim Duyck]

I think I need to just buy this for everyone here...

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-My-Cheese-Amazing/dp/0399144463