Rich Long
He he gotta make the disclamer that this is not mine in any way. I'm in Tennessee and the program I work for is under the FireCorp program with the local FD and funded by the city. I saw this at the conference when I went up there.
He he gotta make the disclamer that this is not mine in any way. I'm in Tennessee and the program I work for is under the FireCorp program with the local FD and funded by the city. I saw this at the conference when I went up there.
J Tyler
EF3
Mr. Long. First, I want to apologize for ribbing the document. I am guilty of being silly from time to time, but never intended to be rude. Let me backtrack.....I disagree with a lot of it, but there is no need for me to be disrespectful.
My personal opinion.....These people are asking WAY too much of these VOLUNTEERS. It is hard enough to get people to stand up and volunteer today. This document puts way too many roadblocks up. I agree that there needs to be -storm spotter- training so you don't have people calling in everything they see as a tornado. People need to know what they are doing in order to be of any value to the NWS, I agree. There needs to be a basic command structure, sure. But, this is SO over the top for -storm spotters-. They are requiring the background check performed by the Kentucky State Police, an oral interview with 3 members "of the command staff", taken the required yearly "downed power lines" course, done my required 24 hours of community service, taken my required first aid training, taken my required ICS 100/200/700/800 which can give me college credits, SKYWARN basic concepts and advanced classes, and my 6 spotter training classes per year. Doesn't that seem to be a bit much? Maybe this is done in more cities than I realise, and I certainly respect that others have different opinions than I do. But, after I read all that document, I began to guess that this thing was written by 5-6 men, aged 55 to 63. They have been doing this there in Kentucky for 20 years, are VERY dedicated to it, and I have no doubt do a VERY fine job for their community. They don't want any "riff-raff", and there are a few "slackers" they want to run off since they are not "good for the program". So, they came up with all this over the top stuff to make people jump thru so many hoops as to leave, or not join in the first place. That is where I feel they are making a mistake. By keeping the good ol' boy club small, they have fewer eyes on the storm. Net Control can filter out the over excited newbies, and over time that newbie becomes a valuable spotter for you. After all, that group of 55-63 year old men can't be expected to still be spotting 20 years from now.
Again, this is only my opinion. My wife and I have taken as much weather training as we can over the years. Our primary interest is storm spotting for rural areas, and we travel across Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Texas doing it. We simply join whatever SKYWARN net we find for the area, and they are able to figure out pretty quickly that we know what we are talking about. If there is not a net, we either find the WFO directly or use Spotter Network and Cell Phone. Pretty simple, and it works.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael_Lewis
In reply to this, I personally find the document to be an excellent foundation to begin the formal organization of the SkyWarn Spotter networks. At the present time there are over 3500 spotters trained in the Northern Indiana SkyWarn Network and during the October 26th event it took over 2 hours before we had received a spotter report. We gleaned the first report of damage from a Media Partner - who got their information from a tip on their website.
The hodge-podge of weather spotters, self deploying and/or sitting at home watching the WSR-88D defeats the purpose of having an organized spotter network. The Kentucky efforts are to be lauded as a first step toward developing a formal plan aimed at facilitating life-long learning and expertise in the field of spotting.
As a WCM, I personally find the document an excellent resource and will be using it as a guiding document for the re-formation of the IMO SkyWarn Spotter Network from the NWS in Northern Indiana.
The hodge-podge of weather spotters, self deploying and/or sitting at home watching the WSR-88D defeats the purpose of having an organized spotter network. The Kentucky efforts are to be lauded as a first step toward developing a formal plan aimed at facilitating life-long learning and expertise in the field of spotting.
As a WCM, I personally find the document an excellent resource and will be using it as a guiding document for the re-formation of the IMO SkyWarn Spotter Network from the NWS in Northern Indiana.
Keith Hosman
EF1
Hey Mike, welcome aboard.
J Tyler
EF3
Yes, Mr. Lewis, welcome. Also, thank you for adding your thoughts to the discussion. Maybe your thoughts can change my opinion.
Your stated concern was that during a recent event, you only received 2 spotter reports and had to rely on local media for damage reports. I live in Texas, so I'm out of the loop, but I'm going to guess the fact that it happened so late in the year (just before November 1st) and was on a Tuesday greatly impacted your volunteers participation. I've noticed that the number of spotters active is a trickle late in the year.
So, my questions.....Do you believe requiring all your spotters to volunteer 24 hours per year to community service will get you more reports?
Do you believe requiring all your spotters to take the FEMA ICS 100.a Introduction to Incident Command System course, then take the FEMA ICS 200.a Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents course, then take the FEMA ICS 700.a National Incident Management System course, and finally, take the FEMA ICS 800.b National Response Framework course will get you more reports? Or better reports?
Do you believe it will help you to get more reports if you force your spotters to all take first aid courses?
This document requires the spotter to sit thru an oral interview with 3 members of "the command structure", and a background check by the state police. Do you believe putting your volunteer spotters thru this will get them to report more?
This document even states you can't wear shorts while spotting. Seriously? Do you think this is also something you want to require of your spotters.
This document requires their spotters to take SkyWarn Concept 1 & 2. I agree there. It requires their spotters to attend 6 spotter training classes per year. That means every other month, year after year, you expect volunteer spotters to sit in another training class. I want quality reports as much as anyone, but that is pushing it barely too far IMO. I think SkyWarn 1 & 2 plus three other refreshers thru the year means you are being weather trained 4 times a year, 3 months between each class. But, at least this is all weather training related, so I will give on this one.
This document also requires spotters to take a yearly recert class for downed power lines. It also requires a "spotter safety class".
Adding all of that up, I count *18* Saturdays per year just for the minimum training to be a spotter, and it has to be repeated EVERY year. That means, if you take the month of December off, you are training almost every other weekend. And, that does not even include when you actually go out and storm spot. You really don't think that is asking too much? Please remember, these people are volunteers, and would like to spend time with their families once in a while.
My belief is, the things listed above will only result in fewer people volunteering to be weather spotters. It certainly won't encourage MORE people to sign up.
Then, there is the command structure. If you already have a situation where you only got 2 spotter reports, and are concerned because you want more, you already have a manpower shortage issue. The command structure listed in that document requires 9 people. That means you will have to go thru your volunteer spotters and find 9 people dedicated enough to basically do a full time job for free (did you read the requirements of the command staff?!). Those will be your most dedicated and experienced spotters. Remember, your concern was that you only got 2 reports during the recent event. How is giving bureaucratic jobs to 9 of your most dedicated volunteer spotters going to get you more field reports? My opinion....you need to have 2-3 volunteers that will contact your spotters to activate them. Come up with a system where you email them, automatic text message them, whatever, to let them know they are needed in the field. Thats it. A good net control operator can filter out the questionable reports, and work with that person at the next training session.
Like everyone on Storm Track, I'm pretty dedicated to storm spotting/storm chasing. I spent $2,500 on equipment just this last spring. I'll spend $300 per weekend in fuel. Another $150 in hotel bills. Will drive 1,400 miles in a 48 hour period. I spend my evenings a lot of the time on weather education so I can be better......But, you would lose me as a volunteer spotter as I do not have time to volunteer 24 hours per year to community service, take all the FEMA command classes, take first aid classes, etc.
Last year, my county only activated its spotters twice. First time was a 25 minute event where a squall line blew thru. Second time was strong thunderstorms, but nothing happened. That was the entire YEAR. Your asking a lot of those volunteer spotters, IMO. But again, I am not hard headed. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong many more times before I die. I look forward to hearing differing opinions.
Your stated concern was that during a recent event, you only received 2 spotter reports and had to rely on local media for damage reports. I live in Texas, so I'm out of the loop, but I'm going to guess the fact that it happened so late in the year (just before November 1st) and was on a Tuesday greatly impacted your volunteers participation. I've noticed that the number of spotters active is a trickle late in the year.
So, my questions.....Do you believe requiring all your spotters to volunteer 24 hours per year to community service will get you more reports?
Do you believe requiring all your spotters to take the FEMA ICS 100.a Introduction to Incident Command System course, then take the FEMA ICS 200.a Single Resources and Initial Action Incidents course, then take the FEMA ICS 700.a National Incident Management System course, and finally, take the FEMA ICS 800.b National Response Framework course will get you more reports? Or better reports?
Do you believe it will help you to get more reports if you force your spotters to all take first aid courses?
This document requires the spotter to sit thru an oral interview with 3 members of "the command structure", and a background check by the state police. Do you believe putting your volunteer spotters thru this will get them to report more?
This document even states you can't wear shorts while spotting. Seriously? Do you think this is also something you want to require of your spotters.
This document requires their spotters to take SkyWarn Concept 1 & 2. I agree there. It requires their spotters to attend 6 spotter training classes per year. That means every other month, year after year, you expect volunteer spotters to sit in another training class. I want quality reports as much as anyone, but that is pushing it barely too far IMO. I think SkyWarn 1 & 2 plus three other refreshers thru the year means you are being weather trained 4 times a year, 3 months between each class. But, at least this is all weather training related, so I will give on this one.
This document also requires spotters to take a yearly recert class for downed power lines. It also requires a "spotter safety class".
Adding all of that up, I count *18* Saturdays per year just for the minimum training to be a spotter, and it has to be repeated EVERY year. That means, if you take the month of December off, you are training almost every other weekend. And, that does not even include when you actually go out and storm spot. You really don't think that is asking too much? Please remember, these people are volunteers, and would like to spend time with their families once in a while.
My belief is, the things listed above will only result in fewer people volunteering to be weather spotters. It certainly won't encourage MORE people to sign up.
Then, there is the command structure. If you already have a situation where you only got 2 spotter reports, and are concerned because you want more, you already have a manpower shortage issue. The command structure listed in that document requires 9 people. That means you will have to go thru your volunteer spotters and find 9 people dedicated enough to basically do a full time job for free (did you read the requirements of the command staff?!). Those will be your most dedicated and experienced spotters. Remember, your concern was that you only got 2 reports during the recent event. How is giving bureaucratic jobs to 9 of your most dedicated volunteer spotters going to get you more field reports? My opinion....you need to have 2-3 volunteers that will contact your spotters to activate them. Come up with a system where you email them, automatic text message them, whatever, to let them know they are needed in the field. Thats it. A good net control operator can filter out the questionable reports, and work with that person at the next training session.
Like everyone on Storm Track, I'm pretty dedicated to storm spotting/storm chasing. I spent $2,500 on equipment just this last spring. I'll spend $300 per weekend in fuel. Another $150 in hotel bills. Will drive 1,400 miles in a 48 hour period. I spend my evenings a lot of the time on weather education so I can be better......But, you would lose me as a volunteer spotter as I do not have time to volunteer 24 hours per year to community service, take all the FEMA command classes, take first aid classes, etc.
Last year, my county only activated its spotters twice. First time was a 25 minute event where a squall line blew thru. Second time was strong thunderstorms, but nothing happened. That was the entire YEAR. Your asking a lot of those volunteer spotters, IMO. But again, I am not hard headed. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong many more times before I die. I look forward to hearing differing opinions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Long
Hi Jeff,
I didn't take your comments as being rude at all. Debate is good. I guess the only problem I have with what you are saying is that there is no requirement for anyone who wants to be a spotter in that state to join that group to continue doing what they are doing. If you want to be a spotter in KY you are not REQUIRED to be part of this group. NWS will still take the report.
Here is where this works. You have to look at it from an EMA perspective. With an organized group with consistent trainning and a single point of contact no one has to "wait for reports" a state or local EMA or maybe even the NWS can call the "Command Staff" and say "hey we'd like you to check out this storm". It's difficult to do that now. Not impossible but difficult. Assuming that an independent spotter gets the call at all (what if closest spotter is not a ham) he is under no obligation to go or do anything. EMA directors dislike using resources they can't control. This leads back to accountablity.
As an organized group they can apply for grants. Christian County (who is the creators of this program) used grants to pay for streaming video equipment for thier spotters, Webcams on top of tornado sirens, etc. This is a very nice feature for the EMA as thanks to a spotter they can watch live video of the storm. Yep they could do this now but my home county EMA is 5 people. I bet they will have other things to do then surf the net hoping someone uploads or streams video.
Since there is no requirement to be part of the organization to spot, those that want the training and want to be part of the group will be (Christian County has good 60 or so people) and those that don't won't and will be spotting like they always have. I guess I just don't see what the big rub is. Now if NWS came out and said these are the only people who can submit reports to us and we are not going to do anymore public training, then ya I would be very pissed at that. Seeing it work in a county already and work smoothly I'd have to say from an Emergency Management viewpoint that I wish I had it in Tennessee.
I didn't take your comments as being rude at all. Debate is good. I guess the only problem I have with what you are saying is that there is no requirement for anyone who wants to be a spotter in that state to join that group to continue doing what they are doing. If you want to be a spotter in KY you are not REQUIRED to be part of this group. NWS will still take the report.
Here is where this works. You have to look at it from an EMA perspective. With an organized group with consistent trainning and a single point of contact no one has to "wait for reports" a state or local EMA or maybe even the NWS can call the "Command Staff" and say "hey we'd like you to check out this storm". It's difficult to do that now. Not impossible but difficult. Assuming that an independent spotter gets the call at all (what if closest spotter is not a ham) he is under no obligation to go or do anything. EMA directors dislike using resources they can't control. This leads back to accountablity.
As an organized group they can apply for grants. Christian County (who is the creators of this program) used grants to pay for streaming video equipment for thier spotters, Webcams on top of tornado sirens, etc. This is a very nice feature for the EMA as thanks to a spotter they can watch live video of the storm. Yep they could do this now but my home county EMA is 5 people. I bet they will have other things to do then surf the net hoping someone uploads or streams video.
Since there is no requirement to be part of the organization to spot, those that want the training and want to be part of the group will be (Christian County has good 60 or so people) and those that don't won't and will be spotting like they always have. I guess I just don't see what the big rub is. Now if NWS came out and said these are the only people who can submit reports to us and we are not going to do anymore public training, then ya I would be very pissed at that. Seeing it work in a county already and work smoothly I'd have to say from an Emergency Management viewpoint that I wish I had it in Tennessee.
Rich Long
Michael welcome! Always good to see WCM's here!
J Tyler
EF3
Hey Rich!
Ok, I *TOTALLY* agree that it would work great if those who WANT the extra training would have it available to them. I'm also glad to see you don't want to exclude those who can't make that large a commitment. What made me go down that road was the following which was part of that document:
NOTE: NWS does not condone, endorse or recommend storm chasing. It is a
dangerous practice and should not be attempted. All weather spotters must work
under the guidance of the local Weather Spotter Coordinator.
After reading the document, I was left with the impression that if you did not have your spotter ID number, etc, they would not allow you to be part of the skywarn net.
Of course, this document may work for Kentucky, but others (like you) could use it as a starting point, and add and remove parts to make it work better for their specific situation. I just hope that those in charge don't lose sight of the fact that the spotters are volunteers. Making them train every other weekend 11 months out of the year is more than what The National Guard requires, and The National Guard has heavy weaponry!
Ok, I *TOTALLY* agree that it would work great if those who WANT the extra training would have it available to them. I'm also glad to see you don't want to exclude those who can't make that large a commitment. What made me go down that road was the following which was part of that document:
NOTE: NWS does not condone, endorse or recommend storm chasing. It is a
dangerous practice and should not be attempted. All weather spotters must work
under the guidance of the local Weather Spotter Coordinator.
After reading the document, I was left with the impression that if you did not have your spotter ID number, etc, they would not allow you to be part of the skywarn net.
Of course, this document may work for Kentucky, but others (like you) could use it as a starting point, and add and remove parts to make it work better for their specific situation. I just hope that those in charge don't lose sight of the fact that the spotters are volunteers. Making them train every other weekend 11 months out of the year is more than what The National Guard requires, and The National Guard has heavy weaponry!
Chris Novy
EF0
I was first introduced to the KY Weather Spotter Network while presenting at the KY statewide conference last month. I'm not really in a position to comment --since the program was just being announced-- other than to say that standardization and training are generally good things so long as they are done in moderation. Let's face it, were talking about watching the weather and making concise reports. It's not rocket science.
If the old skywarn system needs revamping my first question is "what was wrong with it?" followed by my second question "what do you expect the new system to do for you that the old one didn't?". The basic issues as I see them are:
1) how do you ensure people making reports reasonably know what they're looking at?
2) how do you keep spotters from becoming a liability (rogue elements)
3) how do you incorporate time and location stamping of reports?
4) how do you relay reports to everyone needing them in a timely fashion?
For at least three of the four above SpotterNetwork, combined with NWSChat, does a really good job. Reports can be entered by the individual spotter or via net a control operator and everyone is instantly on the same page. Reports are logged and archived and it's east to review the data after the fact.
If I were going to change anything in the skywarn training it would be to place a lot more emphasis on storm features and look-alikes. We're not asking spotters to be forecasters or meteorologists but rather skilled observers. The bulk of their training should be on distinguishing between significant and insignificant features as seen from multiple angles and varying distances. The second area is basic safety --driving in severe weather and distracted driving, site selection and parking, power lines, operating in disaster scenes, etc. We want to keep spotters safe and also reduce any liability involved with their use. The final area would be the use of new technology such as mobile radar, streaming video, and the like. These are tools which aid the spotter as well as make it easier to get more accurate spotter reports.
As for the "no chasing" philosophy, I see this attitude the farther east I travel. Here in Oklahoma it's pretty much assumed spotters will be out watching the storms from their vehicles. While not necessarily "chasing" storms Oklahoma spotters certainly aren't trying to watch the weather from their basements --which was the order of training I received when I lived in Ohio just 5 years ago. That said, I'm sure shows like Storm Chasers will only make it harder to convince EMs and NWS folks to embrace mobile spotting because all they see is idiots driving recklessly in pursuit of personal glory and not helping the public or conducting meaningful science. I other words all they see is liability. I suspect many of the KY Spotter Network guidelines were crafted to clearly distinguish these new EM-based storm spotters from yahoo storm chasers (folks perceived by many as people who just get in the way). I'm also certain there were certain requirements to meld with FEMA's ICS system. Ah ICS, don't get me started on ICS. I've had a pretty good week so far and there's no sense in ruining it now. ;-)
It will be interesting to see how the KY system evolves and how its concepts affect neighboring states --either positively or negatively. As for myself, I will continue to teach my classes so long as people have an interest in what I have to say. I fear, however, that with all the reality TV shows poisoning people my message of safety and public service is rapidly being drown out by the louder and more popular themes of adrenaline rushes and ego satisfaction. I hope I'm wrong.
..Chris..
If the old skywarn system needs revamping my first question is "what was wrong with it?" followed by my second question "what do you expect the new system to do for you that the old one didn't?". The basic issues as I see them are:
1) how do you ensure people making reports reasonably know what they're looking at?
2) how do you keep spotters from becoming a liability (rogue elements)
3) how do you incorporate time and location stamping of reports?
4) how do you relay reports to everyone needing them in a timely fashion?
For at least three of the four above SpotterNetwork, combined with NWSChat, does a really good job. Reports can be entered by the individual spotter or via net a control operator and everyone is instantly on the same page. Reports are logged and archived and it's east to review the data after the fact.
If I were going to change anything in the skywarn training it would be to place a lot more emphasis on storm features and look-alikes. We're not asking spotters to be forecasters or meteorologists but rather skilled observers. The bulk of their training should be on distinguishing between significant and insignificant features as seen from multiple angles and varying distances. The second area is basic safety --driving in severe weather and distracted driving, site selection and parking, power lines, operating in disaster scenes, etc. We want to keep spotters safe and also reduce any liability involved with their use. The final area would be the use of new technology such as mobile radar, streaming video, and the like. These are tools which aid the spotter as well as make it easier to get more accurate spotter reports.
As for the "no chasing" philosophy, I see this attitude the farther east I travel. Here in Oklahoma it's pretty much assumed spotters will be out watching the storms from their vehicles. While not necessarily "chasing" storms Oklahoma spotters certainly aren't trying to watch the weather from their basements --which was the order of training I received when I lived in Ohio just 5 years ago. That said, I'm sure shows like Storm Chasers will only make it harder to convince EMs and NWS folks to embrace mobile spotting because all they see is idiots driving recklessly in pursuit of personal glory and not helping the public or conducting meaningful science. I other words all they see is liability. I suspect many of the KY Spotter Network guidelines were crafted to clearly distinguish these new EM-based storm spotters from yahoo storm chasers (folks perceived by many as people who just get in the way). I'm also certain there were certain requirements to meld with FEMA's ICS system. Ah ICS, don't get me started on ICS. I've had a pretty good week so far and there's no sense in ruining it now. ;-)
It will be interesting to see how the KY system evolves and how its concepts affect neighboring states --either positively or negatively. As for myself, I will continue to teach my classes so long as people have an interest in what I have to say. I fear, however, that with all the reality TV shows poisoning people my message of safety and public service is rapidly being drown out by the louder and more popular themes of adrenaline rushes and ego satisfaction. I hope I'm wrong.
..Chris..
Keith Hosman
EF1
Chris, I agree that some standardization of the spotter training is needed, however not al areas of the country have the same type of storms, or geography.
Out in the plains it is more common to see a single ispoated cell, here where I am you get embedded cells in a line. Storm features can be harder to make out in this case.
What I would love to see as regards to spotter training is a complete redesign of the spotter guides with clearer/cleaner graphics and improved pictures of the storm cell features.
Out in the plains it is more common to see a single ispoated cell, here where I am you get embedded cells in a line. Storm features can be harder to make out in this case.
What I would love to see as regards to spotter training is a complete redesign of the spotter guides with clearer/cleaner graphics and improved pictures of the storm cell features.
rdale
EF5
I think the era of printed storm guides ended... Video is your best friend. We have it by the boatloads, and that should be used instead of pictures. A pic does nothing when it comes to determining imposter features.
RE: ICS -- for those not familiar, ICS _requires_ you to follow the chain of command. The firefighter doesn't talk to the fire chief, he talks to his officer who talks to his division command who talks to the fire chief. Spotter reports in this structure would go through several levels before getting to the NWS. If you only have 2 active spotters, you aren't going to fill up the chain and chaos would result.
RE: ICS -- for those not familiar, ICS _requires_ you to follow the chain of command. The firefighter doesn't talk to the fire chief, he talks to his officer who talks to his division command who talks to the fire chief. Spotter reports in this structure would go through several levels before getting to the NWS. If you only have 2 active spotters, you aren't going to fill up the chain and chaos would result.
Last edited:
Keith Hosman
EF1
Heh, and in some places, the chain of command is broken. I heard one skywarn net last summer, someome called in a wall cloud with rotation, the net control acknowledged the report, called the NWS liasion on the radio and gave them the information, and the liasion person then made the comment "is this something I should report th toe NWS?" Same net, same event, another person came on the net and said "I know we are under a tornado warning, but why are they sounding the sirens?"
Shawn Gossman
Supporter
LOL the uniforms bit is really silly, something to consider opting out. However, I wear skywarn t-shirts and hoodies all the time but mainly to plug the program, people ask me what it is and I tell them and many times they get interested and we have more eyes on the sky come next training session.
If your gonna require all the criminal checks and uniforms and all that, you need to pay your staff... if you run it like a business, it needs to be one... IMO
If your gonna require all the criminal checks and uniforms and all that, you need to pay your staff... if you run it like a business, it needs to be one... IMO
Keith Wilson
EF2
I agree that if you have to meet that many requirements, there would normally be a paycheck involved. They are certainly asking alot from "volunteers".
Grady Joslin
EF0
I guess I live on a different planet when it comes to storm spotting. I live just right across from Louisville, Kentucky and went to the conference where the new Kentucky Spotter Network was introduced. I liked what I saw (the training, uniforms, the plan, etc), it felt like I would be part of an awesome group that really helped the community. So far I haven't seen any of it come to Louisville. In fact a friend of mine and I have been working very hard to train ourselves to join groups like ARES/RACES, Skywarn, etc. It has ended in nothing but frustration after frustration. I can't tell you being at the age 27 years old, wanting to help track severe weather, going back to school for Emergency Management and having what groups (what's left of what they exist) turn my friend and I away, I never have been so frustrated with volunteer groups I ever have been before. I've reported for Skywarn before yet to have my report ignored, applied to ARES so many times and having my application ignored, I've pretty much given up in my area.
I feel like a person on the outside looking in, I see groups on here who have such good and organized groups but yet they want to complain about someone not doing something right, and yet I have to hope to be part of a group that doesn't exist. When Kentucky introduced the new program, I felt there was a sense of hope left of me being a part of Skywarn group. Now the way things are going, I guess Louisville, KY is ignoring the rest of their state and relying on their program called Metrosafe. I have looked for other groups close by and I get the same old answer "Try in your county." When I try to explain my situation to them about how Clark County doesn't seem to want to take new applications from anyone, I basically get the "sucks to be you."
I don't understand if its just the way of thinking of people here, but it seems for wanting to serve the community, they do not want any part of it unless its the usual collecting of money for <insert your favorite charity here>. For right now, I've pretty much just focused to get through my schooling and move out west toward Oklahoma/Kansas so I can do some real good. I only hope my area of Northern Kentucky and Southern Indiana, the groups work themselves out and get where they need to before the next event happens. It just saddens me when I know there are probably others out there like me either young or old, who want to help out but running into the same boat that I have been in.
I feel like a person on the outside looking in, I see groups on here who have such good and organized groups but yet they want to complain about someone not doing something right, and yet I have to hope to be part of a group that doesn't exist. When Kentucky introduced the new program, I felt there was a sense of hope left of me being a part of Skywarn group. Now the way things are going, I guess Louisville, KY is ignoring the rest of their state and relying on their program called Metrosafe. I have looked for other groups close by and I get the same old answer "Try in your county." When I try to explain my situation to them about how Clark County doesn't seem to want to take new applications from anyone, I basically get the "sucks to be you."
I don't understand if its just the way of thinking of people here, but it seems for wanting to serve the community, they do not want any part of it unless its the usual collecting of money for <insert your favorite charity here>. For right now, I've pretty much just focused to get through my schooling and move out west toward Oklahoma/Kansas so I can do some real good. I only hope my area of Northern Kentucky and Southern Indiana, the groups work themselves out and get where they need to before the next event happens. It just saddens me when I know there are probably others out there like me either young or old, who want to help out but running into the same boat that I have been in.
Similar threads
