How does storm chasing compare to other high-risk activities?

[Mikayla Norris]

I know this is an old thread, but has there been any more work on this? I've been told that when I go to request my leave for the end of May this year to chase, I will likely have to make a case to my commander concerning safety before it gets approved. I remembered seeing this thread when it was new and figured any info here could be useful.

EDIT: I decided to do some digging myself along the lines of what was done here. While not as in depth as Dan's equations, I looked at the "Tornadoes of 20xx" pages from 2011-2020 on Wikipedia. At the top, these pages claim to list "notable tornadoes and tornado outbreaks". I didn't include events outside the US or events that were directly contributed to tropical cyclones. I counted all other dates listed for each year and averaged them. Being "notable", in the US, and not contributed directly to tropical cyclones, these days seemed to be the most likely days chasers were out in the traditional sense. While this number doesn't have a way to take into account the danger of the day (HP, terrain, etc), and chaser numbers are still a huge wild card, it could be a starting point for a simpler "person day" 10 year average.

2011: 73; 2012: 51; 2013: 43; 2014: 45; 2015: 38; 2016: 45; 2017: 48; 2018: 51; 2019: 50; 2020: 44. Average = 48.8 days/ year

 

[Warren Faidley]

Storm chasing is as safe as you make it -- likely no more dangerous than a cross country road trip, but with a few wild cards thrown in.

Ground transportation is still the most dangerous factor, followed by poor decision making in routing vs. dangerous circulations, hail, wind, dust, etc. The driving element has a strong X-factor because you are at the mercy of other drivers who may be distracted, driving under the influence, etc. You also have issues with being trapped or unfavorably routed by chase hoards. As for routing, you can always adjust your path accordingly, by how experienced you are, your skills at radar interpretation and analyzing visual storm features in relation to mapping. Think visualizing in 3D.

I still think chasing is extremely dangerous for the upper 3 percent of very aggressive chasers. The only reason many are still alive is because they are a: skilled, b: lucky, c: don't have enough violent weather to chase. The safety numbers in regards to chasing are skewed because there are too few of the upper-ended, violent events to provide accurate statistics. For example, with white-water rafting, skydiving, base jumping, etc., you can calculate risk factors because x number of people can preform this activity all year long. It's simple math. Since ultra-aggressive chasing styles only started in the last 10 years, with a decreasing number of violent storms, there is no accurate way to calculate risk. It's also impossible to know with any accuracy how many chasers are actually on a specific, violent storm, especially in the southern states. If you had El Reno-style events several times a year, the chaser death toll would be much higher.

I suppose a rough calculation could be made by studying the last ten years. There have been around 10 deaths (experienced and amateur) and at least 3-4 serious injuries, so the average would be 1 death per year and .40 serious injuries. Feel free to correct me here.

It would be much easier to calculate non-storm-related driving risks.

Keeping a safe, comfortable, skill-level distance from dangerous storm features, avoid driving in hoards and limiting late night travel will greatly reduce the risks. Most importantly, don't fall under the spell of "I'm invincible" while chasing. This misleading theme has injured and killed chasers and will likely harm more in the future.

 

[Mikayla Norris]

Storm chasing is as safe as you make it -- likely no more dangerous than a cross country road trip, but with a few wild cards thrown in.

Ground transportation is still the most dangerous factor, followed by poor decision making in routing vs. dangerous circulations, hail, wind, dust, etc. The driving element has a strong X-factor because you are at the mercy of other drivers who may be distracted, driving under the influence, etc. You also have issues with being trapped or unfavorably routed by chase hoards. As for routing, you can always adjust your path accordingly, by how experienced you are, your skills at radar interpretation and analyzing visual storm features in relation to mapping. Think visualizing in 3D.

I still think chasing is extremely dangerous for the upper 3 percent of very aggressive chasers. The only reason many are still alive is because they are a: skilled, b: lucky, c: don't have enough violent weather to chase. The safety numbers in regards to chasing are skewed because there are too few of the upper-ended, violent events to provide accurate statistics. For example, with white-water rafting, skydiving, base jumping, etc., you can calculate risk factors because x number of people can preform this activity all year long. It's simple math. Since ultra-aggressive chasing styles only started in the last 10 years, with a decreasing number of violent storms, there is no accurate way to calculate risk. It's also impossible to know with any accuracy how many chasers are actually on a specific, violent storm, especially in the southern states. If you had El Reno-style events several times a year, the chaser death toll would be much higher.

I suppose a rough calculation could be made by studying the last ten years. There have been around 10 deaths (experienced and amateur) and at least 3-4 serious injuries, so the average would be 1 death per year and .40 serious injuries. Feel free to correct me here.

It would be much easier to calculate non-storm-related driving risks.

Keeping a safe, comfortable, skill-level distance from dangerous storm features, avoid driving in hoards and limiting late night travel will greatly reduce the risks. Most importantly, don't fall under the spell of "I'm invincible" while chasing. This misleading theme has injured and killed chasers and will likely harm more in the future.

All very good points. I mostly referred back to this thread and started looking for myself so I can get some sort of number to put in a slide show so I can convince the powers that be that it will be safe for me to take off a few weeks and go chasing. Obviously getting an accurate number, as already stated above, is next to impossible. But a ball park figure I can put in a chart next to other "high risk activities" (there is an actual high risk activity waiver I'll have to fill out, that folks who do those other activities also have to complete) should be sufficient for my needs I hope.

 

[Warren Faidley]

In a nut shell, experience and the desire not to harm yourself or others is what counts.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Michael, I don’t think you are going to be able to put together any fancy stats for this like “person days,” and I don’t think it’s worth doing. All of the variables Warren talks about are of course correct, but what person other than a meteorologist or chaser is going to have any appreciation or understanding of those nuances anyway? You need to keep it simple for your commander. All you should present is something simple, such as the 10 deaths in the past 10 years that Warren cited (noting that a number of those are just driving related, three were researchers purposely trying to get in the path, etc.) Better for your commander to *not* realize some of the nuances Warren points out, such as there being fewer high-end days in recent years. Ten deaths in ten years, with the caveats noted earlier, should not sound like a lot to him, especially in comparison to other activities like skydiving and, of course, normal driving.