Amateur storm chasers cause headaches for emergency spotters

[Dan Robinson]

Just a heads up for anyone replying directly to the Times Record News (or any media for that matter). As tempting as it is to verbally rip into the aformentioned parties, keep in mind that they can and will publish anything you say that might make chasers sound bad. Even if you type a long well-thought out email and manage to slip a little jab in there, that's the quote they will publish. You have to assume that anything you say can and will be used against you, especially since we know the writer has a history of omitting any information that opposes their predetermined narrative.

This is why I've stopped corresponding with them directly and am carrying on this debate on my blog. There, no one can pull something out of context.

Thank you everyone again for all of your support. Every little share and comment does something to help facilitate change, as we have already seen so far.

 

[Chris Kerby]

They should just build a wall around Wichita County & make storm chasers pay for it...and if they build it high enough they won't even have to worry about tornadoes lol!

 

[Devin Pitts]

Interestingly enough, Daniel ran into this issue yesterday:

It's somewhat amusing, but at the same time if this had happened during a serious event with damage to life and property with a closed net in place...

 

[rdale]

Well played by SN - maybe they are in on the profits for that 800 #

But once again - best practice is NOT ham radio. He had SN running - why not submit the report that way so everyone sees it?

 

[Devin Pitts]

He was trying to get info on a bogus tornado report and ended up finding out about the phone number in the process.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Stormtrack mobile app

 

[rdale]

He was trying to get info on a bogus tornado report and ended up finding out about the phone number in the process.

Agreed - I was joking about SpotterNetwork sponsoring a date hotline. My point is that his comment at the end about the "best practice" being a phone call to the NWS, had he submitted his "null report" via SN then everyone would have seen it at that location at the same time.

 

[Jake Orosi]

It would've been the NWS that issued the warning; if I wanted to find out why a warning was issued I think I would call the NWS, not the SN emergency number.

 

[John Moore]

For our office (Phoenix), best practice is a report via the NWS spotter reports website. If, of course, you can do it.

 

[Dan Robinson]

The more information I receive, two things are becoming clear that I did not realize before:

- the incident last week is symptomatic of a much deeper and serious problem that many people that live in the area are concerned about. The Dallas area net is reportedly the same way, and similar incidents have occurred there as well.
- 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've decided to take on this issue on a deeper level, and will be collecting information on it over the next few months. If all goes as planned, I'll put something very professional and organized together once chase season dies down.

 

[Brad Dormer]

I'm not even a spotter yet and I barely know anything about the radios and stuff, to me it seems extremely stupid to have closed spotter nets. That could be the ONLY net in the area for spotters/chasers to report life threatening weather conditions. I get it, there is SN and NWS but relaying via radio seems like it would be the easiest and safest way to do it. Instead of having to stop in the middle of a storm you can just pick up the thing you talk into (I forgot what it was called) and relay information to the person in charge or monitoring the net.... that's just my opinion and instead of the person in charge scolding a chaser/spotter for relaying important possibly lifesaving information over their "closed net" they should be thanking them, no matter what.

 

[Jeff Smith]

Well, there are more dimensions to the overall problem of spotters and chasers than this latest issue. First of all, I think Lynn Walker and the offending net controller Jerry Stanford, KD5INN, should publicly apologize to Daniel.

Unfortunately, spotters as well as chasers get lumped into respective undesirable categories. In some folks’ eyes chasers are the devilish, immoral pricks that yell, scream and shout as a tornado destroys lives. On the other hand HAMs are often portrayed as nerdy old smelly suspender donning men that have an attitude, are introverted, and do not like other people barging in on “their” frequency. Unravel the stereotypes on both sides and you will eventually find common interests: weather and public service. We know as chasers there are a few bad apples in our hobby, as well as there are in the HAM radio hobby. I know, because I dabble in both.

There has been, in the past 10 years, a decline of spotter activity on radio frequencies. That in itself will breed lower quality reports and problems with net controllers weeding out good reports vs unnecessary “white noise”. They are faced with the problem of how to deal with the problematic reports without running volunteers off. This is where chasers could fill a void that Dan spoke of earlier. But it will only work if chasers and spotters work together. We work together in N.E Oklahoma rather well, and there is a concerted effort to improve the network of Skywarn volunteers of late. IMHO HAM net controllers should not be turning away reports at all. There is usually enough time on a severe weather net to get your call in and check in like Daniel was trying to do.

Maybe something good can come out of this fiasco. I know several chasers that are amateur radio operators and we can use this tool for good. I know it is easier for me to report via radio than Spotter Network or even NWS Chat because I am usually multi-tasking like we all are and have both hands tied up during a chase.

A key difference is training and experience too. A lot of spotters are not very well trained, unless they are weather geeks--then they usually "morph" into a chaser.

Chasers are either a. met students or graduates, or b. self taught (usually with outside influence and help).

Of course, there are self-proclaimed spotters that think they know more than God Himself....but some chasers are this way as well:

Just an opinion and maybe some bits of helpful input....

 

[Randy Jennings]

The Dallas area net is reportedly the same way, and similar incidents have occurred there as well.

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:

If ANY station reports an imminent threat to life or property.

• It does not matter if they have a RACES unit number or not we take that report!
• You are not responsible if another operator has not read Part 97 or does not understand it.
• If it becomes obvious that the station is not reporting an emergency and is not a RACES appointee then note their callsign and ask them to stand by.
• At the end of the Net return to this station and invite them to join RACES.
• Use this as a filter, not a bludgeon.

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.

 

[Justin Reed]

[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.[/QUOTE]

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.

 

[Warren Faidley]

As someone who is heavily involved in the spotter community via social media, speaking engagements, ham radio, media interviews, etc., this issue is not just about a person who was denied access to a spotter net. This is a wake up call. I really appreciate the work Dan is doing, and I only think this will lead to good things, but lets face the music and stop ignoring the actual issues here. Mr. Walker is just reflecting an opinion based on what he's witnessed on television and in social media over the last 8-10 years. His opinion is not isolated. It's shared by thousands of people who know enough about the reality of chasing to construct an informed opinion. 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. How long will we avoid the truth? Like others, I don't agree with broadbrushing chasers into a single group of misleading idiots, but that's the price we will pay for not addressing this issue sooner... as many chasers and at least one professor pointed out years ago.

Many of the comments in Mr. Walker's article stem from fairly common beliefs regarding chasers now days. For example: "To claim they do this for a purely altruistic reasons is ludicrous on its face. To say they do it to enhance the body of scientific knowledge is even more absurd." I wonder where on earth (or from who) he got such an idea?

I've already spoken about the time I was cursed out by a firefighter during the Chickasha, OK tornado search and rescue operation who mistook me for another well known chaser. I've also been chastised at fundraisers for the American Red Cross and other events were people commented I was "scamming the system." "No, I'm not that person," I tried to explain. I also mentioned the discussions I've had with law enforcement, emergency managers, researchers, meteorology professors, NWS employees and management, other chasers, spotters, the public, clients, Legislators, news media, sponsors, ect. You can bury your head in the sand and find all the excuses in the world but the facts cannot be ignored any longer. Some chasers have argued there is no evidence of disrespect, this proves there is. This "modern" disrespect for chasers did not originate from Twister, Sharknado or Night of the Tornadoes. It originated from the show Storm Chasers and the kingpin who bombarded the media, social media, TWC and countless outlets with idiotic behavior and silly "research" that never produced a single, peer-reviewed, scientific paper based on all those years of "research" or led to the saving of lives by said research. Now I understand many people buy or defend this fluff, out of loyalty, celebrity obsession or shear ignorance. That's fine. I intend no argument over individual opinions. What bugs me are the never ending, illogical excuses to avoid this problem and ignoring the damage that has been done and where it originated from.

 

[Jay Farlow]

Hello from one of the forum's newest members. A brief introduction: I've been a spotter and amateur (ham) radio operator for decades and currently serve on the board of directors of an organization of ham radio operators (http://www.imoskywarn.org/) that supports the Northern Indiana WFO (IWX). As such, I provide leadership to the main ham radio spotter net for the southeastern quadrant of the IWX CWA.

I've been blogging about the Wichita Falls situation (http://w9lw.farlowconsulting.com/20...welcome-on-texas-ham-radio-storm-spotter-net/) without realizing (until today) that this forum exists. I just caught up on the posts in this thread.

Various posts here pretty much cover everything I've blogged so far, but here are some thoughts that might (or might not) prove helpful.

I corresponded directly with Mr. Byars, who assured me via email that the Wichita County net would always accept and forward a spotter report from anyone, including non-members, but that other participation in the net (whatever that means) by non-members was prohibited. In the audio clip posted on this forum, it's clear that Mr. Shaw did not at the time have anything to report. Nonetheless, I was personally embarrassed by the way the net control station operator represented ham radio.

With regard to closed nets. It can be helpful to understand, as someone else pointed out, that it's not so much the net that prohibits outsiders' participation, its the owners of the repeater system on which the net operates. A repeater system is made up of physical equipment that in most cases is privately owned (either by an individual or a club). You can think of it as analogous to the equipment in a ham's car. The owner of the equipment has the right to decide who (besides himself) can use that equipment. As someone previously mentioned, the FCC has long upheld the rights of repeater owners to similarly control who uses their repeaters.

I was surprised to learn that the Wichita County ARES (or any spotter group) prohibits net participation by outsiders. Our main net here operates on the 146.88 MHz repeater in Fort Wayne, Indiana, which is owned and operated by a club, the Allen County Amateur Radio Technical Society. The repeater (and therefore the net) remains open to all licensed radio amateurs during SKYWARN operations. You're all welcome to participate if you're ever in the area. I think this policy is wise, because it enables better situational awareness for spotters monitoring the frequency than would be available if people instead sent reports to the WFO by other means. When reports go to the WFO via SpotterNetwork, telephone, etc. our spotters in the field don't learn about those reports until and unless the WFO issues an LSR and/or mentions them in some other product.

We do, however, have a policy and procedure that the net invokes during times of high urgency and high radio traffic. We begin what we call a directed net, during which all stations are asked to contact the net control station and await acknowledgement before transmitting further. During a directed net, we ask stations to contact the net control station only when they have something to report that meets certain criteria (e.g. flooding, wind damage, hail, wall cloud, funnel cloud, tornado). It's all outlined in our SOPs, which we make available via the Web: http://fwrc.info/index.php/files/finish/5-other-files/24-imo-skywarn-quadrant-2-operations-manual

Even during such times of restricted usage, any licensed radio amateur is always welcome to make reports.

I applaud the response of the North Texas ARRL section emergency coordinator. Unfortunately, while he has authority over ARES operations in his jurisdiction, he lacks authority over repeater owners. The owners of the Wichita Falls repeater may therefore choose to continue closing it to outsiders at any time. Presumably, however, the SEC's policy would prohibit an ARES net (but not a net that is not affiliated with ARES) from using said repeater.

I read here that the Wichita Falls group has therefore abandoned ARES. I note that the title and profile picture on its Facebook page has removed ARES references. In an email today, however, Mr. Byars wrote, "As far as I know we are still ARES, and will stay that way." Take that for what it's worth.

We don't experience the kind of chaser convergence here in Indiana that occurs in the plains. One could hypothesize that if we did, our net might require more restricted access. But I doubt it, especially after reading here that many nets in areas of high chaser convergence remain open to outsiders.

Other posters are correct to state that the NWS has little interest or ability to control how ham nets operate, even those that use the trademarked SKYWARN name. OUN WCM Rick Smith, however, made clear in an email to me and in public statements elsewhere that his WFO welcomes all reports from everyone. Since that's the case, I think it would be appropriate for the WFO to encourage the Wichita Falls group to be more welcoming of outsiders.

73 (Best regards),

Jay, W9LW

.