Does spotter training need improving?

[Brian Barnes]

I’m wondering if anyone besides me believes that the standards for “basic storm spotter training” should be raised a bit. I don’t want to bruise anyone’s feelings posting that, but here is my thought –

In the past 2 years there have been 2 storm spotters killed in the “line of duty”. At least that I know of, the Macksville, KS PD officer and a volunteer fire fighter in Seneca, MO. Both deaths were the result of a direct tornado impact – not hydroplaning, car accident, etc… But, this is 2 to many storm spotter deaths – it’s now a “statistic” of 1 spotter death per year for the previous two years.

A lot of people here, including me, personally know at least one WCM and we all know how hard they work– again, I don’t want to bruise any feelings…I think they do an amazing job for what they have to work with and I applaud them all!

But, I’m wondering if the general consensus is starting to be that curriculum for basic/general storm spotter training should be raised a bit (or left alone, but taught with better tools), and if or not it should be a mandatory training item for any “agent” of a city, or county municipality (not talking about file clerks, but LEO or fire fighters whether paid or volunteer – anyone who may be asked to perform storm spotting duties on the job)?

I’ve got 17 “spotter certification certificates” in my desk drawer just because I opt to sit through a short-course in my county every February – I attend to assist if asked (even if I’m just asked to help pack up), but since I sign-in, I receive a certificate.

A few years ago I purchased a winter home in Florida and when digging through the Ruskin, FL WFO’s website one day I found this: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tbw/TampaBaySkywarnOnlineQuiz.htm, I answered the 25 questions and had a new certificate in my mailbox a few days later (and this one has a little perforated area at the bottom for a card that can be laminated…so it looks all official and stuff!). Hence the sarcasm, the “prerequisite” of being a “certified” spotter in some CWAs is pretty lax, in my opinion.

I’m not sure what, if anything could be done to expand the quality of the training received at these courses. But, for the most part they are a series of watching videos focusing on the rear flank and covering additional topics such as flash flooding (the El Paso “Call 911, Call 911” video anyone?).

Most industries today, and the military use far advanced training tools than videos, photos and diagrams. Soldiers are being trained using 3D “virtual reality” tools (combat simulators) and a lot of industries are using similar tools to educate their workforce – including law enforcement. Fire fighters can now fight an incredible fire in the back of a truck trailer that can simulate any number of real conditions that they will face during their jobs.

This all being said – it could be the case that both the Macksville PD officer and the Seneca fire fighter could have been very well versed on the subject and it was just the other variables that got them (i.e.: Seneca, MO is hilly, has a lot of trees – making storm spotting difficult and Greensburg supercell was just crazy and insane all around).

But I’m betting that if either of them had more direct knowledge of what they were up against, or access to some visual tools – or at the very least direct communication with a trained nowcaster (such as a dispatcher, or 911 center with GR Level II and proper training in “spotter coordination”) that it might have bettered their chances of survival.

Additionally – the spotter training that I’ve sat through focused primarily on teaching the individual the basics of storm structure and various risk and hazards. But perhaps just something as simple as training a few within their respective departments, or EOCs how to keep their spotters safe could add some value to any storm spotting program. Much like how OK-FIRST has trained EOCs for the past several years in Oklahoma.

Anyone else have similar thoughts? Or am I alone in thinking this?

 

[Bryce Stone]

I agree with you 100%, but the implementation is where I get lost. Many of the spotter training presentations I've been to seem little more than meet-your-buddies-and-shoot-the-bull-during-breaks sessions. Not only that, but I've talked to people who've been to these yearly presentations for many years and still have little to no idea what they're looking at in the field.

I myself was a spotter for four years and didn't know jack until I became a chaser. So yeah, I agree with you. The yearly spotter presentations may provide people with just enough information to get them hurt in the field.

But how does one provide effective, real-world knowledge without providing real-world experience? That's the problem here, since a storm cannot be brought in to provide hands-on knowledge during a training session. An interactive computer program is a good suggestion, but the cost of implementation could limit its widespread use.

At the least, I would like to see the NWS go way more interactive with the presentations. Real-time scenarios with feedback would greatly improve the amount of knowledge imparted, IMO, and would be a great first step in the right direction.

 

[Andrew Pritchard]

When my father was younger, he was an ESDA spotter for the county. They were put through about 20 hours of classroom training, took exams, and then had to spend a certain amount of time riding along with another spotter who already had been certified.

The current method of a yearly 2 hour session doesn't even come close, and is the reason that I no longer use a police scanner while chasing to listen to the garbage that comes from 90% of the spotter networks out there.

 

[John Diel]

The majority of Spotters in our area (North Central Oklahoma) are generally retired or just about to retire folks. Most have no interest in getting more advanced training. Each city and county agency has their own requirements and method which includes NWS Spotter class at least every 2 years.

I would think that the more advanced training would be best utilized, would be with the EM Managers. The folks that are supposed to direct and manage where the Spotters are. Blackwell, Oklahoma does a very good job of this.

PD's, FD's and SD's are not required to be Spotters. They are not required to have the training. It's an oversight that I don't agree with, but then, that's why we have EM departments and Storm Spotters, right?

OK First puts out an excellent program. It's geared towards the EM Managers and for what it does, it does very well. However, it really falls to the "Management" side of the coin. The EM Director really must be in control and Manage the people he has out spotting for him. Hence the assigned sectors. Again, we fall to the Most Spotters are retired thing again. In the case up here, Most EM Managers are retired from one agency or another and take the EM position to pad the retirement. That's not all of them though. But a very big chunk of them are in this category.

I agree that more interactive and one on one training would be useful. Having to take a test or quiz afteward would be beneficial. The NWS Spotter Training classes presented each year ARE getting better and better. I've certainly noticed a difference over the years. Some of the trainers are better than others, each one has their own style.

However, in the end you can only put so much into a 2 hour course and still keep one's student's attention. Also, these guys are volunteers. It's their time and gas. Alienate them and you lose your eyes and ears.

JD

 

[Chris Lott]

I went to the one in McLennan Co.(Waco,TX) this year and it was a fairly low turnout due to previous years. The thinking is since there is rarely severe weather in the area, the less need for spotters, which I totally disagree with. There were a few new people this year, and the advanced spotter training for the "new" people seemed to catch people off guard. I overheard a guy talking to someone on his cellphone saying " this is hard stuff." A lot of people think it's just looking at a cloud and looking for a tornado. As has been said on here before, if you don't understand storm structure you can get yourself into serious trouble. I was listening to a local weather net the night of the 2/10/2009 event when the squall line came through, and heard a guy talking about a tornado cloud. I also heard a guy on the same frequency giving reports of golf ball size hail in his area. The next day the same guy was speaking as if he wasn't sure if it was golf ball size or not. He said it had to be as hard as it was hitting his windshield. Scary stuff when you have spotters who aren't sure what they are seeing.

 

[A Newcomb]

I'm going to the one in Hendricks Co, IN on Saturday afternoon. My dad took me to the previous 3, but I'll be going on my own this year. I'll easily be the youngest (16) one there. I agree that the training needs to be changed someway, somehow. While Central Indiana's spotter system is known as one of the better ones in the country, there are still things that 'grind my gears' sometime. (Eg, many reports of heavy rain, and wind....okay...we're aware of that...)

I guess it has been a long off season for me to get into a lot of details, I'll have to add to this after Saturday.

 

[John Olexa]

I took all mine at the National Weather Service Forecast office in Sterling VA. (pre 9-11) now they don't hold any there.
They were pretty good in there training.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/lwx/skywarn/skywarn.htm
I took:
basic 1
basic 2
Flash flood
Winter storms

 

[Scott LaFlesh]

I'm going to a Skywarn class on March 17th. I've never been to one so I'll let you know if there are any differences here in upstate NY as opposed to the training in the more central states. I was told that the classes generally last 1 1/2 to 2 hours though so I assume it's the same or a very similar curriculum. My only curiosity will be if they focus more on extreme winter weather and thunderstorms since tornadoes here are pretty rare.

 

[David Drummond]

I'm going to stir the pot here and suggest that it isn't just some spotters but quite a few chasers that need additional training as to what they are seeing before they start making reports. Not to derail the thread, but reports are reports regardless of the title the person gives themselves. Chasers often wear the spotter hat.

In recent years (particularly last year) I watched quite a bit of reports pop up on spotter network from chasers just a very short distance down the road from me, looking at the same thing I am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We were all green at some point. There is nothing wrong with being new and green. But if you are not 100% sure of exactly what you are reporting, then don't report it as that. We "chasers" often seem to like to hold ourselves to a higher level than "spotters" (whether justified or not), but these sorts of reports are not any better than the "it's getting dark and raining here" reports you hear from spotters sometimes.

Then again, I really don't know what to say if you are one of those that actually think a non-rotating hangy down scud thing with some linear moving dust under it really IS a landspout.

 

[A. Scruggs]

David, you hit the nail on the head. Spotters and chasers can use some better training.

I agree that some spotters are currently hamstrung by the lack of a net control without radar. Proper training for new and inexperienced spotter/chasers is very important. After a few years, I think there is no better training than actually getting out and watching the storms. When you think about law enforcement and fire department spotters, they usually only cover a single county (the one they work in) and therefore are limited in the number of storms they can observe (unless they also chase during off shifts). True chasers have an advantage in that they are not bound by any commitments to any local or national governing body and can chase whatever storm strikes their fancy, in whatever county or state.

Having been a spotter for 15 years now I don't think I get much out of either the beginner's 2-hour class nor the "advanced" 2-hour class. I've got the theory and mechanisms of thunderstorm development and progression pretty well down. However, as a spotter for the NWS I'm still required to attend training every two years, and I will continue to do this faithfully. Even with the experience I have I still try to learn something from each storm I chase. The storms usually don't disappoint.

Alan

 

[Jim Saueressig]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tim Shriver]

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

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

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

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

Tim

 

[Andrew Herron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[David Drummond]

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

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

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

Yep, they feel that is enough.

 

[Andrew Herron]

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

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