Does spotter training need improving?

[Tim Shriver]

I always find it interesting that radar interpretation is requested so much. How does this help with looking at clouds though? Or, without doing this, how do you avoid becoming too technology centered?

Just thoughts.

The reason might be is they wish to know more. To better understand
and be able to use all the tools available.

We try to link what the spotter/chaser sees in the field with
what it might appear like on the radar.

Having an understanding of and using both together is better then
using one mode alone.

Radar is sort like a fish finder. It indicates where the items
of interest are/were.

It then depends on your skills as an angler to haul in the big one.





Tim

 

[Todd Krause]

IMO, radar info is one of those "nice to have" topics as part of the spotter class, but in a two hour class, time is at a premium, and most spotters have told me that they benefit more from spending the time learning/reviewing the basics of storm structure and what the important clouds look like. For many of them, it's the only time they'll see this stuff for an entire year. If there are groups that want more info than the basics, we're happy to provide it.

Todd

 

[rdale]

I do radar interp classes for spotters and EM's - but it's always separate from the NWS training. There's just too much to cram in to make it worthwhile...

 

[Rich Long]

Rdale

I agree completly and right now that is the plan. If a member wants to work in the trailer he/she needs additional training.

 

[Shane Adams]

With so many spotters equipped with mobile internet, I think integrating visual observations with radar, both for daytime and nighttime spotting, should be the current framework for storm spotting training. A lot of the false wall cloud and funnel reports might be reduced if those reports could be related to their relative position in the overall structure of the storm, which is easier to interpret given radar data.

That sounds great on paper, but many spotters struggle with the simplicity of visual observation/identification (despite "training") in the field. Seems unrealistic IMO to expect they could grasp the complexities of radar interpretation. I've sat in many chats watching people prediciting and calling out situations they think will be happening soon or are happening based on their radar observations. Anything not perfectly round is a hook echo, and every garden variety storm with mid-level rotation "should be tornado warned."

I disagree that spotter training should encourage radar watching. I think anything that takes focus away from learning the visual clues/observations in and around severe storms is a deterrent. It's obvious IMO there are enough issues with spotters understanding the visuals as is, without the added distraction of radar.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Rdale

I agree completly and right now that is the plan. If a member wants to work in the trailer he/she needs additional training.

I also agree.
Radar classes also tend to put many folks to sleep
in no time flat.

But those that want to learn more will take the time to
attend extra classes.

Most of us see a system coming our way, on the radar, long
before we can see it with our own eyes. Thus being able to
see what is heading your direction, to know what your looking at
and is helpful in placing yourself in the best safe viewing position.

This also shows the importance of well organized and active spotter groups to help continue the training.

Tim

 

[Tim Stoecklein]

I'd say the terms "radar interpretation" are being interpreted differently here

I think the basics of reading radar would be very valuable, but I wouldn't think of it as we evaluate radar in many cases as chasers. Think of identifying a squall line, an actual hook echo, a maturing/dying storm...the basics. Save the rest for an "advanced Skywarn" session.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

That sounds great on paper, but many spotters struggle with the simplicity of visual observation/identification (despite "training") in the field. Seems unrealistic IMO to expect they could grasp the complexities of radar interpretation.

You may be surprised at how many spotters are beginning to understand radar from the standpoint of storm observation. It isn't a stretch to think that many, if not the majority, of spotters these days have access to radar images via wireless devices. Don't sell them all so short - visual interpretation of storms can also be complex, but I will posit that by integrating the visual data with the radar data, it might remove a layer of complexity in the understanding of the storms.

But I agree, it's a new concept that is probably best handled in an advanced spotting course at the beginning.

 

[Rich Long]

Greg,
I agree with what you pointing out here. That's one of the big reasons I asked for a radar class distinctly seprate from spotter training. Here in OHX land the basic and advanced classes are given together in one class of 2 hour length. With that critera I would never think of trying to cram radar into that. I'm going to have to do enough suplemental training for the spotters as it is. If they wish to advance then the radar class will be there for them.

 

[John Wetter]

To the original post, I don't necessarily think that the training needs to be improved, but I do think that both the NWS and local spotter groups need to move away from the notion that if you had enough sense to show up for a class, then you have enough sense to be a spotter. I think the bad reports that lead to a thread like this are due to the 'everyone welcome' idea that is spotter training now. I don't think quality will improve until there is at least some base knowledge or 'common sense' test applied.