Does spotter training need improving?

[David Drummond]

That's my point though. In all the ones I personally have spoken with (I'm not talking about NWS), they all feel that the 1-2 hour classes the NWS comes out and gives them is all they ever need. How can you volunteer additional training if they don't want it?

For instance, in one particular county, I hear them on the scanner when storms are in their area, they activate their little EOC and their designated people go out and look. I can tell from being in the same places as they are, or by noting their locations and what they are trying to see, that they could very much benefit from additional training. They have a main guy at the EOC that gives out radar info he's getting from the local TV station website (not all that great and not very frequently updated). Bless his heart, he tried but it's clear he really does not know what he is looking at 90% of the time.

I offered the Sheriff one time when we talked to come up and give then some more detailed radar training. I was hoping he would take me up on that, and maybe it could eventually move in to giving them more detailed instructions on chasing the storms in their county, which is what they attempt to do.

I was told they had classes from the NWS and they have a guy that knows all about the radar.

Which is why I guess I hear him say things like "well the it's green and I think there might be some hail because there is some yellow just north of ______" and it's clear even by that he's looking at radar over an hour old.

Just one example. Hopefully my experiences aren't the norm. I'm absolutely all for volunteering some time for some more in depth training, but they have to be receptive to it.

 

[Andrew Herron]

I see your point! "...drove the Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry?"

There IS only so much you can do and my comments weren't directed to you or anyone else who volunteers. It just bugs me that some people see fit to soapbox here when really they should be directing their thoughts and comments to the WCM.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

Hah, you have been here in my county! We even have our own radar......

But you will never tell anyone here that they don't know it all and need more training, it pains me to listen to the radar summaries and field reports at times and especially when I am looking at what was just reported as _________!

They only use their fireman, they take no one else anymore and sometimes the fellows that head out are already so tanked it's a flipping wonder there haven't been reports of little green men falling from the sky!

For instance, in one particular county, I hear them on the scanner when storms are in their area, they activate their little EOC and their designated people go out and look. I can tell from being in the same places as they are, or by noting their locations and what they are trying to see, that they could very much benefit from additional training. They have a main guy at the EOC that gives out radar info he's getting from the local TV station website (not all that great and not very frequently updated). Bless his heart, he tried but it's clear he really does not know what he is looking at 90% of the time.

I offered the Sheriff one time when we talked to come up and give then some more detailed radar training. I was hoping he would take me up on that, and maybe it could eventually move in to giving them more detailed instructions on chasing the storms in their county, which is what they attempt to do.

I was told they had classes from the NWS and they have a guy that knows all about the radar.

Which is why I guess I hear him say things like "well the it's green and I think there might be some hail because there is some yellow just north of ______" and it's clear even by that he's looking at radar over an hour old.

Just one example. Hopefully my experiences aren't the norm. I'm absolutely all for volunteering some time for some more in depth training, but they have to be receptive to it.

 

[Terry Tyler]

I dont buy into the fact someone can be "certified" by a two-hour class. Ive been to plenty of classes and its all pretty much the same subject matter. Its good and educational and all that but i felt like it was missing something. There wasnt any kind of "certification" from what i saw. You just signed in and sat there.

My philosophy on the matter is this. I believe that its better to have 100 "trained" spotters then 3000 "untrained" spotters. If your considering a layman who comes in off the street with no prior education to severe storms. You cant expect him to be a viable spotter and fully understand storm structure and mechanics the first time around. It has taken me years to get to this education level and sometimes i still dont know what im looking at.

Opening the doors to anybody is just setting yourself up to get more conflicting reports. When you start getting a bunch of bull**** coming in, you start losing the integrity of ground truth information. I strongly agree along the lines of what apritchard was talking about. Instead of having a 2-hour meet twice a year. I would propose that people have to go through and fill out several detailed applications to be a NWS spotter. I also think that people need to go through about 20 hours of extensive training and be tested on their knowledge at the end of each session. I also like the idea of doing a little ride along to view a real-life thunderstorm.

Having rigorous standards is critical to having good, reliable reports. I know there are some that would say that its crazy to expect people to jump through hoops like that, but the way i see it. Its the hoops that would attract only the best and brightest to go out there. Only someone who truly had a hard on to be a spotter would go through there. A program like that would be a dual sided blade that weeds out those who are too lazy or uncommited to follow through and provides more detailed training to those who really do care and want to do a good job.

Ive been to too many classes where the instructor says "im sorry, ill try to wrap this up as soon as possible". Somehow i feel thats where the problem lies. I believe as with anything, if your going to do something, you might as well go all the way. Otherwise its best not to go at all. If you packed all your yearly funds spent on current spotter training and consolidated it all to one 20 hour-course session held one week once a year at a reputable university camperson. You would have less spotters coming out but alot higher quality spotters.

 

[terra seright]

That's my point though. In all the ones I personally have spoken with (I'm not talking about NWS), they all feel that the 1-2 hour classes the NWS comes out and gives them is all they ever need. How can you volunteer additional training if they don't want it?

For instance, in one particular county, I hear them on the scanner when storms are in their area, they activate their little EOC and their designated people go out and look. I can tell from being in the same places as they are, or by noting their locations and what they are trying to see, that they could very much benefit from additional training. They have a main guy at the EOC that gives out radar info he's getting from the local TV station website (not all that great and not very frequently updated). Bless his heart, he tried but it's clear he really does not know what he is looking at 90% of the time.

I offered the Sheriff one time when we talked to come up and give then some more detailed radar training. I was hoping he would take me up on that, and maybe it could eventually move in to giving them more detailed instructions on chasing the storms in their county, which is what they attempt to do.

I was told they had classes from the NWS and they have a guy that knows all about the radar.

Which is why I guess I hear him say things like "well the it's green and I think there might be some hail because there is some yellow just north of ______" and it's clear even by that he's looking at radar over an hour old.

Just one example. Hopefully my experiences aren't the norm. I'm absolutely all for volunteering some time for some more in depth training, but they have to be receptive to it.

OK, new spotter here, and I'm speaking my mind, please don't take offense y'all, but I calls it like I sees it.

I fully agree with the points that have been made here...but let's look at it from the other side!

One thing that has been a hurdle for my family is that the training schedule is not easy to find if you don't know where to look. We watched the news for the workshop info for 2 months and never heard a thing about it last year. This year, we'd done some research and found the local NOAA guy's email.

Then, we go to the meeting, and I had hell getting a good grasp on it because of the guy in the row behind me constantly commenting on EVERY photo and video. This is one of our local emergency services guys, believe it or not. As if the comments weren't loud enough to break my ability to pay careful attention, he was also smack-talking on "new spotters" every time they showed people who got stuck/washed away/hailed on...

I couldn't answer any of the little "pop quiz" questions because I hadn't heard all of the lecture. I had to go back and study on my own and didn't have the ability to ask questions on the material, since I had not heard enough to know what I didn't understand about it.

Another issue---Have you all been to any of the spotter chat rooms? I've asked questions in there, and rarely gotten them answered. I joined some of these chats because I thought I could get a better idea about what I'm doing out in the field, and get some quick answers to questions that I might have. Nope. Most of my questions are completely ignored. There are some who will answer, but mostly I'm left with a feeling like I'm not part of the elite clique, so I should STFU. I understand that sometimes in the chats, people are paying attention to the chases that may be happening at the time, but really, how much trouble is it to answer a question here and there?

Here are a few that I've asked recently...and been completely ignored.

How far off can one see a tornado? How reliable is the tornado history project? Is the RFD always on the same side of a tornado? Can you get a clearing (RFD) without an actual tornado touching down? Can you get a tornado without an RFD? Do tornadoes ever appear from the tower, or is it always from the wall? (yea I know these should be on another thread, I'm just using them for the point I'm making here)

My point is:
Some of us are receptive..........but we hit brick walls.

Yes, the training should be much more in-depth, and accessible, because (for one thing) I should not have had to learn not to punch a core by way of a microburst moving the truck to the other lane, tires off the pavement. I know it was a microburst and not a macroburst because I found it in the Advanced Spotter's Field Guide earlier today. The training should also be a class and not a "good time to meet your buddies and talk about the accident that you worked earlier in the day". Thank God I watch the news story that they put out every year during severe weather awareness week, or I'd have thought I was in a tornado when I was in a gustnado, similar to a report made in one of the posts above!

 

[Jason Boggs]

OK,

How far off can one see a tornado? How reliable is the tornado history project? Is the RFD always on the same side of a tornado? Can you get a clearing (RFD) without an actual tornado touching down? Can you get a tornado without an RFD? Do tornadoes ever appear from the tower, or is it always from the wall? (yea I know these should be on another thread, I'm just using them for the point I'm making here)

1. It all depends on the atmospheric conditions as to how far you can see a tornado. It depends on lightning, dust or pollutants in the air, among other things. Storm evolution such as HP (rain wrapped tornado) or LP storms play a role in the visibility of tornadoes. Some tornadoes can be seen for maybe 10 miles or more, while others cannot be seen until you're very close.

2. Have no idea.

3. I don't think the RFD is always on the same side. I think it would depend if it's cyclonic or anticyclonic.

4. You can get an RFD without a tornado forming. If the RFD isn't strong or warm enough, a tornado may not form. There are a lot of papers and essays on RFD interaction and tornado formation.

5. I imagine you can get a tornado without an RFD forming. It helps to have an RFD because it aids in the stretching of the vortex to the ground.

6. Nothing says that tornadoes have to form from a wall cloud. Most of the time they do, but not always. It just depends on where the localized rotation is the strongest. Again, wall clouds typically produce tornadoes, but it's a good idea to have your head on a swivel looking at other areas. A lot of times Mother Nature doesn't play by the book.

Be aware that I'm definitely not an expert on any of these subjects that I answered. Some may even be totally wrong, If they are, someone please correct me.

 

[terra seright]

LOL. Jason, thank you so very much! Hehe, I may bring cookies for the KAMR booth at the workshop!

Add:

If anyone would like to organize a training class on their own, I'm sure there would be some interested parties. I don't the sherriff's office or the EM folks would even have to be involved. Maybe the EM folks believe their limited training is enough, but I'm sure that us plain-clothed people of the community would welcome more opportunities to learn. I can tell you that there are 4 of us who would attend for sure...especially if the word gets out through fliers or on the radio. There's no need for a TV commercial, really. Word of mouth on amateur radio would do it too--you wouldn't believe how many of us are scanner geeks (course, as of yesterday, I'm a licensed ham hehe).

And I am intersested in seeing how many show up for the workshop in a couple of weeks, too.

 

[John Diel]

I think it's a given that better training is needed. The NWS does a very good job, but it isn't really enough. Keeping this on the Spotter level (Spotter meaning the folks that don't venture far away from their home town and report to a specific authority), I go back to my original presumption: Dedication, funding and interest. If I were to require "ride alongs", "certifications", and more "stringent training" I would loose 98% of the Spotters in the entire County! I really doubt that there would be enough "new" interest to make up 4% of the 98% lost.

Living in one of the more tornado prone area of Oklahoma, this would be a devastating loss of eyes and ears.

It's not easy as almost any EM will tell you. The volunteers are exactly that. They get no pay, no reimbursement, and little recognition. It's not as glamorous as a Volunteer Fire Fighter and it sometimes require long hours at night. I could go on and on here.

I believe that the NWS training is a very good start. Unfortunately, too many view this as the "Alpha and Omega". Beyond requiring that Spotters attend either annual and bi-annual training, there's not much that can be done. Personally, I talk to all of our Spotters directly associate with the County. I explain to them that I would be more than happy to give them the tools and train them to my level any time they wish. Just keep me going with coffee. Have any of them taken me up on it? Not yet.

JD

 

[terra seright]

Understood, John. Everything you just mentioned would be welcomed with my group...

But there are only 4 of us. There were about 30 people at the spotter training last month, and about half of them were with the local EM, who were "dragged in" for their usual training.

I really think that if the word got out in our area for sure, more interest would be shown. The local EM here is the HQ for the spotters...these are the ones who spot storms around the city during storm season and then work accidents and other catastrophies the rest of the time. And no, they don't seem very happy to do it. The meeting that we attended after spotter training was basically a lecture
"Don't gab on the radio. remember the 15-3-15 rule."
"Folks, be specific about where you are located in case something happens, so we can find you."

If you require the more stringent training, it's not as enticing, lol. The NOAA guys did a great job with their power point presentation...but then the info was very basic, and the "regulars" in the class made it difficult to learn. I do feel like I got a certificate just because I showed up tho....almost like I cheated. lol

I am always eager to learn more, as is my son and my Husband, and a good friend of ours who got into chasing/spotting because of the fun we've had. Most people we know say we're crazy, but would love to come along when we go. We're not in it just to get photos or be a warning system. We are also setting up to be of assistance to victims. We've taken our amateur radio tests and are planning a CPR class next.

But we're having to seek out this knowledge on our own. No one is putting out the info about it.

 

[Jason Tunzer]

Great topic here! I just wanted to let thoes interested know what we do here for training. In order to join our spotter group we put on 2- 6 hour training classes that our advanced spotters teach,they are required to attend both classes as well as the NWS training class. For their first season they only go out with an advanced spotter,no exceptions. That way we know they are safe and they can also "learn on the job" so to speak. To graduate they need to have 3 severe weather deployments and the spotters that they deployed with must also sign off on them. It's alot of extra hours for us to put this on since we put together our own curriculum and teach the class, but I feel confident that we are getting reliable and accurate reports and our spotters will go home safe after a job well done.

 

[A. Scruggs]

Terra, one of the things the local NWS spotters group tries to do is to pair a newcomer with an experienced spotter to help you understand what you are watching and how it related to the training that NWS provides. The newcomers I've spoken to enjoyed this mentoring.

As far as spotters or chasers that won't give you the time of day - ignore them. There are others that will be more than willing to help.

Alan

 

[David Drummond]

Terra, one of the things the local NWS spotters group tries to do is to pair a newcomer with an experienced spotter to help you understand what you are watching and how it related to the training that NWS provides. The newcomers I've spoken to enjoyed this mentoring.

Alan

Some do, many don't however.

 

[terra seright]

Yeah, unfortunately in our area, there was no pairing, just the lil class. However, through this site, I've found some good folks and sources of info. Networking with others on here is helpful. Chad is one who has been very friendly, and we're excited to meet him on the 21st, at his booth at the severe weather workshop...as well as others.

Jason, that sounds like a great learning experience for new spotters!! Good job!

 

[Brian Barnes]

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.

I second David on this and I know of a few of his attempts first hand. I guess some things in my inquiry here was lost in translation, that's okay. But, while seeing reports from "that guy that we always hear on spotter nets" on the Spotter Network making really ignorant reports is also something that bugs me (as well as most of us) - it's not the main issue that I am concerned with. My focus here was how we could approach LEO/Fire and get through exactly what David has stated above - "NWS already provides us with spotter training".

I'm concerned about the "statistic" of 1 storm spotter death per year now for the past two years. And, not so much about seeing the 15mph high wind gust report.

SKYWARN is a grassroots effort. NWS didn't come up with the idea - but they have adopted it and it's a great effort that allows them a vehicle to get training into community centers. But in my opinion, its not enough if storm spotters are getting killed. Obviously I understand that situations just happen and even the best trained spotters could get killed and I don't know the level of training that the deceased had participated in either. But the first rule to any response is to make sure YOU survive because you're no good to anyone in the form of assistance if you're dead. And there were other spotters/chasers on both these storms that didn't place themselves in the situations and were later available to help with the initial response/rescue phase.

I think there are basically 2 types of storm spotters. Those who enjoy it and want to do it as a hobby. And those who do it because it's a requirement of their professional careers. It's the latter that will find themselves sitting on a dark county road at 3 am when the former decide it's too dark and go home, and it's the latter that (so far) have been fatally injured.

So if you were asked by someone who had influence over that second type of spotter on how they could improve their storm spotting/weather decision programs, what would your recommendations be?

For example - this would be mine...

A police officer typically has with them a radio and cell phone and their first line of contact is a dispatcher or 911 center. During severe weather events the chain of communication in small rural communities normally has to be routed through a dispatcher from NWS then relayed to the "spotter" and vice versa.

Since we have such great technology these days allowing any home or office PC to have more instant information available to users than WFOs had just a few years ago - why not train dispatchers on subjects like "basic" radar interpretation and put GR Level II in front of them. I know its a vast subject but there are some common echo signatures that can be easily identified with minimal effort - they don't have to identify velocity couplets, etc.. but just seeing a where a storm's rear flank is on radar along with the "spotters" GPS position on-screen might allow the dispatcher to shave a few seconds off from touching base with their spotter and requesting him/her to find a better place depending on the situation.

Just imagine for a minute that you're an officer on a smaller department somewhere and you're in your car at midnight you know the storm you're under has a history of producing tornadoes - you feel you need to be there in order to help warn your community - but you're "in the dark" and have to call your dispatcher who then has to call into a WFO for an update and then relay that message back to you. To me, that would be kind of scary - especially if I couldn't recall everything that was said in a presentation back in February...

So my one recommendation might be to create a training program for dispatchers and 911 operators. But- I could be way off track with that. I know they are busy - but with good training they should be able to quickly identify some tell tale signs of danger and quickly move their spotters if need be. Who knows - it might help. And, it's basically what OK-FIRST has done in Oklahoma, but of course that is a little more than a 2-hour training program.

And to boot - most chasers that I know (and that would be quite a few of you) are the type of people that would love to pitch in and help develop these type of programs, and some have offered and usually the result is like bouncing off a brick wall, basically what David had pointed out earlier.

[updated]
I'm also not referring to an EOC with a director who is on top of things with a well trained team. I've was once part of such an EM team and for the most part it works out well. My scenario would be best applied to those areas where there might not be an operational EOC at the time - just a few LE spotters (or fire) and a dispatcher working the night shift in small town America.
-Brian Barnes

 

[Laura Duchesne]

Funny thing is, IMO the basic skywarn class I went to in Buffalo, NY seemed to have a bit more info on storm structure than what the canwarn program here in Ontario has. Recently, a group of spotters/chasers here in Ontario have been discussing on how to improve canwarn. Some have wondered if skywarn would be willing to work with canwarn, but I kinda doubt it. I wish canwarn here would follow a similar setup/organization to skywarn. Brian, it seems we have been getting the same results here... we want to help but it seems no one wants to listen. Unfortunately canwarn seems to want to avoid chasers like the plague due to liability concerns. Those guys seem to be their own breed.

Honestly, what does skywarn think of chasers and/or mobile spotting? Is there a clash between the two down there as well? EC really emphasises that their spotters stay home and watch the storm, but unfortunately sometimes it is hard to see what's doing on, as opposed to being out in the field. I've seen more when chasing vs staying home.