Does spotter training need improving?

[terra seright]

We went to a RACES/ARES meeting last night, and it seems that this is a good way to get more training in the TX Panhandle. There will be another spotter class next month during their regular meeting. Also, I found out about NIMS training from FEMA, and EMCOMM training. I heard that these two cover the linguistics of disaster communication, as well as other subjects... The RACES/ARES group also highly recommends ride-alongs for those who are not experienced, and everyone there was willing to take someone with them. There is a lot more training for those who have their amateur radio licenses...to include CPR, which would be helpful as well, even for spotters! Y'all go get your licenses, the first one is E*A*S*Y and there is mucho support for you on the net, to include practice exams. 35 questions and you can miss as many as 9 and still pass.

The spotter training class we took doesn't seem to emphasize home spotting over field spotting, or vise/versa, though it does cover the fact that it is safer to stay home and "porch spot". (there is a more technical term, but the loud-mouth in the class talked over that part)

The severe weather workshop that is going on at the Amarillo Civic Center on March 21sounds like a more in-depth look at the subject, with booths set up, as well as a seminar.

I was looking at some night video that I took back in 2007 last night. I used my mouse to control the speed of the video so that I could stop in a frame and see the lightning shots in still form (just to see the pretty stuff lol). I found out just how dangerous it is to spot in the dark! I had caught a stovepipe and didn't even know it. I really think that this is one thing that needs to be emphasized more heavily in spotter training. Mostly what you hear is "Chasing at night is more dangerous because it's dark and you can't see tornadoes that may be in the area." That's it. Nothing more mentioned. There were no signs, such as lights/transformers popping in the area of this tornado. Lightning has to be in just the right spot, or the tornado won't show up at all.

Also, bursts need to be highlighted. Our truck was lifted off the pavement by a rush of water and wind, and moved into the other lane--looked like a river flowing across the road for about 30 seconds. Good thing there were no other cars on that segment of the road at that moment. We need to see what a burst looks like as it hits the ground, not just that it can happen. Some bursts can look like the debris cloud on the ground from a tornado, especially if there is something resembling a funnel above it, which can make one think that a twister has actually touched down.

So if anyone's working on developing a better educational set-up---maybe you can remember what I've posted here.

 

[Damon Poole]

I would say most of the spotter classes I've taken have been excellent about covering the basic and advanced topics. If someone misses something or doesn't understand, the question and answer session usually takes care of it.

 

[craig buchanan]

Getting Better

I think NWS has a clue that things need to be changed, but I think the big problem comes in how to effectively create a program that improves the situation without turning off the needed eyes and ears. One of the initiatives they talked about during the National Severe Weather Work Shop in Norman a couple of weeks ago was creating an national SkyWarn database. This would have the benefit of creating a list of those people who have come forward but more importantly, they will be able to keep records from WFO to WFO of who is reporting what. Hopefully this is result in fewer "sherif-nados" (sorry, I work for a PD and still think that is an appropriate term).
As a companion to this, they want to standardize training across the country in much the same way they do for NWS staff. I am not sure if the Warning Decision Training Branch will be directing the training, but hopefully whoever will be taking input to heart from those who are "in the trenches".

 

[Jesse Risley]

Remember that some of the effectiveness of these lessons comes down the presentation style just as much as it does the material itself. I notice that no matter who, what, when, where or why, some audience members are nodding off towards the latter half of the basic spotter training presentation. Each office does things a little "bit" differently too.

I think the material that's being presented is good, but has anyone thought of beginning with the end goal in mind and then creating some sort of an assessment (i.e. here are the objectives and this is how I'll see if the audience has learned what I presented)? There are pros to this approach, but the cons are of course related to organizing and scoring an assessment on top of what's already likely a large workload at the NWS.

However, more and more people seem to tune out "lecture style" presentations, even though it's by far one of the most effecient forms of conveying large amounts of material in a very short period of time. Perhaps a more multi-media, interactive approach could be used with an even more directed Q&A session? People tend to be more interactive and involved in the process if they are actively engaged in the discussion.

I think the NWS does a good job as is, but those are just some thoughts to mull over. In my opinion there is simply no substitute for EXPERIENCE. This is a "hands on" task, not something that can be perfected in 2 hrs at least every other year.

 

[Gerrit Gulden]

Alot of good points made throughout this thread. I went to my Spotter meeting the other day and they covered the basics (winter storms, flash flooding, ice jams, tornadoes, funnels, shelf clouds, wall clouds, microbursts, flooding) and even showed look alikes and the "what would you report". Alot of people in the meeting would have reported tornado when indeed there was a fire and plume up to the base of some clouds. So I definetely understand and agree that there should be more extensive training. What I dont like for my NWS office is there is only 1 training a year. Yeah you can go to each county but your gonna get the same presentation everytime. I am jealous of those NWS offices that present multi meetings per year and the actual qualification criteria with passing an exam.

I can only hope that Spotters will do as most of us have and find online resources to learn more about the elements in weather and structure and everything that someday will come into account for the report that we make which will save a life rather than scare a bunch of people for a mistaken identity report.

-gerrit

 

[Wes Carter]

Last month I went to the Spotter training in my county. The county EMS office is the one that put it on. Some were rescue squad, some were firefighters, some were deputies, and most were citizens. I thought that the guy with the NWS did an admirable job explaining things and utilized some really good visual aids, but only so much can be done in three hours. In fact, after the training was over there was a Q&A session. The questions that were asked blew my mind in some cases. "So, what's the difference between a tornado and high winds?" "Why do tornadoes follow rivers?" "How wide did you say an F5 was?" "Does a tornado follow the storm or does it drag it around?"

But the best one was a comment: "We didn't used to get all of these tornadoes until they built them lakes. Before they built them lakes they only had tornadoes out there in the prairies. They said the dams control the flooding. Well, they're right about that because the dams keeps it flooded all the time."

It reminded me of a conversation I had with a fellow at work. We just installed a hydrogen system with fuel cells on the AGV's (Automated Guided Vehicles, or robotic transports). It went something like this:

Operator: If that hydrogen tank goes, it'll take out the town.

Me: No, it wouldn't be that bad. I wouldn't want to be out back, but I don't think it would do much besides maybe take out the back wall.

Operator: S---, I seen a hydrogen bomb go off on the History Channel, it took out a whole island.

Me:Well, that was a nuclear bomb...

Operator: Yeh, and we be breathing that s---!

Me: Well, this stuff isn't radioactive. And even if it was, it's lighter than air. It rises. We don't breathe it...

Operator: Bulls---! That stuff ain't lighter than air!

Me: Yes, it's light...

Operator: Then you tell me how you put 5000 pounds in one of those little fuel cells? Lighter than air my a--!

Me: You know, you're right. Maybe you ought to bring that up at the next safety meeting.

Operator: I know I'm right, and I just might do that.

I guess my point is this: Sometimes training isn't what's needed.

 

[Drew.Gardonia]

Wes, sounds like some people just need common sense. Maybe the NWS should give out common sense tests before allowing just anyone to take a spotter training course.

I plan on taking my spotter training course in Nashville this month.

 

[Neil Schostag]

A thought to relate...

I've been with the Ambulance for many years, starting back in the day when it was, "Oh, there volunteers, there doing the best they can, leave em alone" I also remember the change over the period of a VERY few years when things got serious. Now it's, if your going to be on the Ambulance you WILL know your job! Everyone expected to loose a lot of volunteers, but guess what, very few the weak were weeded out, all the rest stepped up. Today, whether your professional or volunteer, you take the same test. I've been doing this for 20 years and with all the current changes and updates, when I recert I damn well better pass or, I am out on the street.

I see no reason why people who are "assigned" to give the word to protect an entire community should be much different. My thought is, It's up to the NWS to up the standards, SKYWARN and others will NOT collapse, but only get stronger. Fewer, maybe, but then we've all heard, quality not quantity.

just a thought...

neil

 

[D. Hayes]

I'm no where near as good as most of you but I take the training class every chance I can get. I've taken it at least 5 times in the last 3 years since moving to kansas.

The other night there was a guy on our skywarn ham frequency making reports of wall clouds in my area yet there were no super cells even in the state yet. The skywarn controller had to shut the guy down telling him to take one of the many skywarn training classes. Funny this is the guy doing the reporting said his friend sitting next to him was a trained skywarn spotter.

yea.

 

[Tim Shriver]

A thought to relate...

My thought is, It's up to the NWS to up the standards, SKYWARN and others will NOT collapse, but only get stronger. Fewer, maybe, but then we've all heard, quality not quantity.

just a thought...

neil

While I agree that the NWS should up the standards on spotters I do not
think we will see that to much of an extent. Most WFO's do not have
the extra dollars in their budgets to do more then they are now.

What I would like to see is the NWS tighten up on spotter groups.
This would allow the NWS to work with fewer people one on one and
motivate the spotter groups to further their members education and
to enforce higher standards.

Question: Does your spotter group "Activate" only when a warning is issued?
If so are they really doing the best job possible?

I see so many groups that wait until a warning is issued. To me
this is way to late in the ballgame. Should they
not be ahead of the game? Checking out cells that could go severe warned?

This comes down to more education. It takes more training on radar
and field observation skills to be this proactive. It also takes a well planned
out and practiced communications protocol.

We need to fill in the gaps between radar sweeps. To be aware of
the weather enough and educated enough to identify, select and act upon cells that need to have a warning issued or not issued.

We must be able to be the cause of the warning and
also be able to let the WFO know that a cell is not producing server weather.
Preventing an unneeded warning is just as important. To do that
you must be educated, in place and ready before a warning is issued.

No report is better then a bad report.

Just something to think over...

Tim

 

[Rich Long]

I lead a small group of city officials and our groups leadership to our local National Weather Service office (OHX) this morning and one of the topics we discussed was ways they could help make our training better. One thing i asked for was a class in radar interpretation. The WCM had a class made up for that and will be presenting it to our group in late January.

Sometimes the extra training is there but you just have to ask.

 

[John Wetter]

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.

 

[rdale]

I always find it interesting that radar interpretation is requested so much. How does this help with looking at clouds though?

It might be more for the at-home spotters, who chime in on the net with "I just saw The Weather Channel and they are showing red over me, might be a tornado" or "GRLevel3 is showing a TVS over Jonestown, so I'm telling the fire department to sound the sirens".

I'm only 1/4th joking.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

I always find it interesting that radar interpretation is requested so much. How does this help with looking at clouds though?

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.

 

[Rich Long]

We requested it because our group is tasked with responding with the fire department on large incidents, Setting off tornado sirens, providing weather information for large public events, etc. All of our spotters report to a central point and they are the operators who need to understand the radar. Our city asks a lot and funds us so we look for the best training we can get.