Lessons Learned, Irresponsible Chasers, Ethical/Moral Responsibilities

[Rob H]

words

I think our escape path was a mile north of 848th and it was nice gravel the whole way through. Another instance of fate playing out in my favor that I wouldn't have even known about without this thread. How many of these freebies do chasers get and not even know about? I'm guessing a lot.

 

[Will Campbell]

• Someday, someone in our community (or perceived to be) is going to drive into a tornado and they're going to recover footage which will show bad judgement of the chaser involved. Or some storm chasers will inadvertently cause the death of a person or group of bystanders. Media outrage and possibly a politician or two will focus on a sudden political lightning rod event causing the beginning of legislation minimizing or banning storm chasing, and then we won't be able to do it anymore.

Again, maybe it's cynicism on my part, but I always feel like that thought is hanging around in these discussions, but left unsaid because it's easier and more noble to advocate for public safety rather than personal freedom.

Good thoughts and welcome to the land of the posting.

This thought is quite literally discussed in depth at least once per year. The general consensus from the community and law-savvy is that while banning storm chasing may be considered, it is constitutionally and logistically not going to be possible to do. I'd be apt to agree with that outlook. There's no feasible way to "ban" storm chasing, or at least to realistically enforce it. I mean, the ability to go where we want on public land, when we want is a basic freedom we enjoy in this country. Taking that away would probably have a lot of backlash. Not only that but then the self-righteous will rise to object stating they are out there to "save lives," which the vast majority of storm chasers are not there to do, myself included. If I can render assistance at some point, awesome, but my sole reason is documenting for my personal use and the enjoyment of friend's company during the journey.

 

[Warren Faidley]

To my way of thinking, chasing is like sky-diving. It has many safety features that are/can be utilized, but that does not change the fact it is dangerous ... the only way to make it completely safe is not to ever go up in the plane. So long as they are only endangering themselves by "getting too close", what's the problem? ("Too close" according to whose/what standards?) The world is full of risk-takers

The problem is that they are not only endangering themselves.

There are multiple examples: EMS personnel may have to drive through possible dangerous weather to assist them. (This nearly happened with the TWC crew near El Reno). In addition, if there is a disaster (especially in small communities) the EMS personnel would be limited in response if they have to work a stupid chaser accident. What about the careless chaser who becomes so distracted or is driving so recklessly he or she causes a serious accident involving innocent people? What about the passengers who may **trust** a chaser / driver, only to find out they are taking foolish risks they did not expect or want? There are more reasons: Years ago, I had two local chasers crash head-on (minor injuries) in front of me near Midland after one skidded on a mud slick road. The road was completely blocked and the embankments were nearly impassable due to mud. Thankfully I was able to 4 wheel around them through the mud or I would have been stuck with a possible tornado behind me. Everyone seems to forget... we are chasing on public roads with laws, not closed recreational areas, like ski slopes. There are a host of ethical and copycat reasons we have already discussed. You are not going to stop idiots from killing themselves, Darwin already figured that out.

W.

 

[Jeremy Perez]

I'd like to add my appreciation for this topic, and the valuable experiences that people are including.

I try to chase a bit further back from the action, so I don't have anything probably too harrowing to share, but I did want to relate a tense situation (for me) from last month that might add to the landscape.

While chasing the HP storm that heaped mounds of hail and speculative tornado reports over Denver on May 21 I decided to pull way ahead. Early on, as the storm was grinding its way out of the Denver metro area, I was maybe 3 miles out each time I stopped for photos. I had to deal with some anxiety each time I tried to queue back into the conga line heading east. So after 3 episodes of jamming into line, I figured heck with that, I'd like to enjoy myself, so I pulled way ahead and went for pano shots and maybe a miracle of new circulation developing ahead of the RFD core. No tornadic wins there, but I definitely felt safer and had a better time than grinding my teeth down through every traffic maneuver. That was my strategic success for the day.

What goofed me up though was the upscale development that inevitably happened. Based on earlier HRRR runs, I was kind of waiting for it, but made some assumptions about how it would evolve. By the time the initial cell got even messier and moving off to my northwest, new convection was developing on its southern flank, so I decided I'd had a good chase, got some good photos, and was going to disengage. I was kind of worn out and didn't want to race a hundred mile long gust front into Kansas for lightning ops. My plan was to look for a weak gap in the line that was forming to my southwest and thread through it. So I decided to hold ground on a good north-south paved road and then move up-down to a likely spot as the developing line moved east-northeast over the road.

I had conveniently parked across from a residence with a flagpole that I decided I'd use as my windsock while I kept an eye on data and what was approaching visually. Pretty quickly, the line started to fill in, and soon enough I was in heavy rain and gusting winds with less than a hundred yards visibility. To my utter disappointment, radar showed that the line was not advancing eastward and was now training northward over my road. Instead of forming a bow and propagating eastward like I had anticipated, the entire convective mess was converging into an MCV with spiraling arms, basically spinning in place. Even better, reflectivity to my south was growing stronger and was gaining a small couplet. And even better than that, I did not have good east-west options in close proximity that weren't of the dirt & clay nature and now completely soaked. To my north was the devolving core of the storm I had been chasing and to my south, a possibly embedded supercell in the southern arm of this galaxy of doom. It appeared to be wobbling a bit in its northward progress and there was still possibility that it would make its way east of my road before getting close.

But I had my windsock across the road for some degree of ground truth and it gave me hope. I watched as winds & blinding rain were still blasting out of the southwest with radar vacillating between relief and anxiety of whether the potentially embedded meso was going to pass to my south. But then the flag dropped and stayed limp for a couple minutes. I think I'm having just a bit of PTSD right now describing that tense couple minutes. Then the flag started whipping the opposite direction on northeast winds—either inflow, or the trailing rain foot on the passing line. I wasn't waiting to find out. I jammed off to the north into the lesser-of-two-evils core as fast as I could safely go with blinding rain, gusting winds and, with some relief, only a smattering of small hail. I got to a point 2 or 3 miles further north and stopped across the road from where another chaser had found a good pullout, and watched radar again, trying to gauge wind direction from the rain fall.

At that point, the southern threat had finally crossed to the east of the road and things quickly cleared. Way too much stress and option for screwing up on that tactic. As I recall, the embedded couplet didn't have a strong signal, and possibly something that others with more experience wouldn't give a second thought, but it gave me a really good appreciation for how I needed to reconfigure my strategy for disengaging in a situation like that. No more hanging out on a single north-south or east-west road to thread through what I think is going to be a benign QLCS in its infancy. When the line wants to blow up fast, the one-dimension approach is stupid and fearfully reduces options. A good perpendicular road will be a must for making a run for it if threading to the other side becomes too dangerous. And if I can't find a good spot for it, then I just bear down and drive as long as I need to stay ahead until I do find a good crossroads.

[Edit:] A quick note that yes, I've always considered the necessity of perpendicular escape routes for situations near or in the path of an approaching supercell. However, I hadn't—until now—given it priority for disengaging through upscale development. That strategy file has been updated.

 

[John Farley]

Good thoughts and welcome to the land of the posting.

This thought is quite literally discussed in depth at least once per year. The general consensus from the community and law-savvy is that while banning storm chasing may be considered, it is constitutionally and logistically not going to be possible to do. I'd be apt to agree with that outlook. There's no feasible way to "ban" storm chasing, or at least to realistically enforce it. I mean, the ability to go where we want on public land, when we want is a basic freedom we enjoy in this country. Taking that away would probably have a lot of backlash. Not only that but then the self-righteous will rise to object stating they are out there to "save lives," which the vast majority of storm chasers are not there to do, myself included. If I can render assistance at some point, awesome, but my sole reason is documenting for my personal use and the enjoyment of friend's company during the journey.

Although I generally agree with Will here, there is one important point that he left out. That is that, while chasing probably can't be outlawed, law enforcement certainly CAN make it difficult or impossible. They can and do block off roads around severe storms, and if they are sufficiently antagonized by bad chaser antics, it is not that difficult at all for them to block roads in ways that make chasing a particular storm difficult or impossible - especially if the storm is in an area with limited road networks. So for this reason alone, irresponsible chasing can make chasing a lot more difficult for the (I believe) much larger number of us who make an effort to chase in a safe and responsible way.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Although I generally agree with Will here, there is one important point that he left out. That is that, while chasing probably can't be outlawed, law enforcement certainly CAN make it difficult or impossible. They can and do block off roads around severe storms, and if they are sufficiently antagonized by bad chaser antics, it is not that difficult at all for them to block roads in ways that make chasing a particular storm difficult or impossible - especially if the storm is in an area with limited road networks. So for this reason alone, irresponsible chasing can make chasing a lot more difficult for the (I believe) much larger number of us who make an effort to chase in a safe and responsible way.

Well said.

Yes, this subject has been beat to death before, but in light of events over the last two years, it might be a good time to revisit.

I still don't know why chasers think chasing could not be made illegal. Likely not on a Federal level, but city, county and state jurisdictions are entirely possible. I don't see checkpoints or anything that serious, but it's not that difficult to pass a law, especially if there are deaths of public servants or innocent people.

Can it be enforced 100%? Likely very difficult. It's like going over the speed limit by 10 miles per hour in chase areas. Is everyone going to be busted, likely not.

But look at it in a legal sense: Once you make a law, it gives the jurisdiction and law enforcement the ability to arrest or site you. For example: You are out chasing in Bonehead County, TX. There is a now a law that prohibits anyone from actively pursuing severe weather on public roads. You are chasing a big ass supercell and the State Patrol sees you going by at 6 mph over the posted speed limit or notices a camera on your dash. He pulls you over and sees all the gadgets in your car and comes to the conclusion you are chasing. So off you go to the local magistrate to pay a speeding fine and the $500.00 fine for chasing. (The second offense is $1,500 and a week in jail). You have the option to plead not guilty and argue you are a spotter or researcher. (This is why it's a tactical move to start saying you are a researcher as some see this coming). So your trial is in a week. You would like to chase the big outbreak in KS next week, but you need to drive all the back to TX to face the judge. The judge determines you are not a registered spotter in Bonehead County. You get the fine; a warning and you miss the 3-hour stationary, 10x better than Campo tornado in KS.

This is a silly example, but it shows it's not impossible to make laws, no matter how silly or stupid. And when you make laws, it gives the insurance, legal, rental car and others the method to refuse claims or services because now it's law.

I would not want to be the "idiot" who causes this someday.

W.

 

[Will Campbell]

Nor would I. Valid examples and theory given W. I have certainly noticed LEOs in some areas being much less tactful with those they perceive as chasers. I got a speeding ticket from an Iowa country sheriff for doing 57 in a 55 after he asked if I was going for the storm to the west, and was told in a very violent and vulgarity laden way to "get off the side of the road" by a Nebraska State Patrolman as I was monitoring the storm that produced a nighttime tornado south of Aurora, NE...while I was on the phone with Brian Smith, the WCM for NWS Omaha. I was pulled completely into the grass, not even on the road surface, 4-ways on, headlights off, on a state highway with no signage for "no stopping" or "emergency parking" only. So to some degree this is already being felt by many.

 

[JamesCaruso]

In an earlier post here, Warren expressed a desire for "some of the veteran chasers" to "return and join the discussion." He further noted that those "who have been chasing for 15+ years are likely better able to see the contrast of how chasing once was and where it's going." I by no means consider myself a "veteran." I reserve that "title" for the true pioneers such as Chuck Doswell, Dave Hoadley (who does still post on ST), Gene Rhoden, Jack "Thunderhead" Corso, etc. But I have been chasing for 18 years, beginning in 1996. I am almost shocked to realize that I have been chasing long enough to meet that experience threshold Warren set forth! I still consider myself a novice, especially because I can only chase two weeks per year max, and there have been a couple years I had to miss, and a couple years that I could chase only one week. There are many "newer" chasers that already exceed me in total chase experience. Nonetheless, I can at least say that I have been around long enough to see the "contrast of how chasing once was and where it's going."

Before going out on my own in 1999, I spent the first three years of my chase career chasing with Marty Feely's "Whirlwind Tours." For those of you that don't know that name, Marty already had 13 years' experience when I first toured with him in 1996. He was considered a "veteran" then, and he probably had one of the first tour companies. Back then, the only ones I was aware of were Marty's and Charles Edwards "Cloud 9." Marty never broke the speed limit, never core punched, never even went on dirt roads, and always kept a good distance from the storms. We did not have mobile radar back then, and I remember us hanging back behind a low visibility situation, seeing nothing, based on spotter reports of a tornado up ahead that he did not want to drive into. Unfortunately, Marty got out of chasing entirely many years ago. Back then, chaser convergence was three cars meeting up at the side of the road. There were larger convergences - Sitka/Meade 1999 was my first experience with a significant one - but they were not commonplace on nearly every isolated supercell like they are today. I know Warren won't get mad at me for saying this because he admitted it himself in this thread and in others, but back then he was criticized as a self-promoter and thought of as an aggressive chaser. Jack Corso was considered a "bad boy" of chasing just for core punching.

As a recreational chaser, I used to think that what today's high profile "professional" chasers do had no effect on me; they were simply in a different league, with different goals and a different approach. But now I realize that, surreptitiously and imperceptibly, their antics have indeed raised the stakes even for me. The types of videos that can be seen on the mainstream news have raised the bar on the definition of "success" in storm chasing. The holy grail used to be getting a tornado, period. Now, the holy grail is getting close-up video of a violent wedge. The extreme stuff seems to dilute the value of the more commonplace, placid scenes of a tornado from a mile or two away. I have seen tornados that in the past I might have been thrilled with, but now I might regret not getting closer. I know what my family and friends see on the news, and I feel embarrassed, almost like a failure, if I can't bring home footage on a par with that.

Now, please don't take this to mean that I am *trying* to get this type of footage myself. I consider myself to be a relatively conservative chaser. I am simply saying that I can see the almost subconscious effect this extreme chasing has had on me. It has changed the backdrop against which I view my own success. I may make the decision to stay safe at the expense of getting potentially better footage, but I am aware of that trade-off; I am acutely aware that I am giving something up, aware that I could have gotten more dramatic footage, and often feel the need to justify to myself (and to family and friends back home) why I couldn't get the type of video shown on the news. In the past, there was no thought process like this. The backdrop, the context, is simply different today. Like I said above, it's about the bar somehow being higher now. And I do believe that is a dangerous trend.

As Dan said above, there really are several different themes in this thread. I did not watch the clip in Eric's original post to start the thread, but I don't think he was suggesting that this was an act of extreme chasing. I think he was simply interested in taking a closer look at some hazards that we might not otherwise notice. General chasing safety and extreme chasing are separate, but related, issues.

Regarding the example of the hazards in Eric's original post, I can't fault anyone for not noticing them, and I don't consider that failure to be an example of "extreme chasing." We all take calculated risks. No situation is 100% safe. You are never going to find a completely visible, photogenic, non-rain-wrapped tornado with perfect road options, no chaser traffic, no power poles and no objects that can go airborne. Even severe RFD winds can create dangerous missiles, but as Warren himself said in a different thread you cannot avoid RFD risks unless you are several miles out from every storm.

This past year, I chased the Garden City, Texas storm on Memorial Day. There was only one eastbound road out of Garden City, with no south road options for many miles east of town, and the storm was moving southeast. As we tracked east ahead of the meso, leapfrogging other chasers, we were nearly bumper to bumper for a time, unable to move any faster than 30 mph. I thought to myself, if there was a large, violent tornado coming up behind us, we would be screwed. Was I (and all of us on that road) irresponsible or "extreme" chasers for not having an escape route? Should we have bailed south immediately at Garden City and given up any chance to stay with the meso? Personally, I think we made a reasonable risk/return calculus in that scenario. If it was a more violent supercell on a day with more intense parameters, I like to think I might have made a different decision.

I think Eric's initial thought in starting this thread was a good one, to improve our situational awareness by looking at potential risks/hazards that may go unnoticed in the heat of battle. Failing to notice those, or making the gamble that the object won't go airborne at the moment you pass by, is not, IMHO, "extreme chasing." What is "extreme chasing"? I think it's like the Supreme Court said about pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

 

[Rob H]

That was amazing insight into the hobby that many don't have, and an all around fantastic post, Jim.

In regards to the earlier point, I can definitely see certain counties/towns being problematic for chasers in the future, especially if a chaser hits the town's school QB or something (in Texas this would be the death sentence). Sadly, the people that care the least about this issue could possibly be the ones most impacted by it. Getting close for the best footage and pulling off the chase early to upload are stressful, but they pay for part of the chasing season for some people. A $500 ticket would crush their season.

 

[Shane Adams]

I find the fact some chasers feel pressured by the daredevil/deep pockets guys to push themselves more to get "better" video fascinating. What a lot of people (mostly muggles but some chasers too) seem to not understand is, getting close doesn't require anything more than the will to do it. There is no magical or special "talent" that those who choose to get the closest possess. They just keep going when others stop. it's not mystical, it's not heroic, and it's nothing to be celebrated as making them above anyone else. They get close because it pays. Otherwise we'd see all these close videos that weren't branded and pre-packaged for screener use.

I've got a few pieces of video where I'm "the hero" getting close. They happened because the storm worked out the way I wanted it to. I never force a certain shot, ever. I don't want every video I shoot of a tornado to be me creeping along at 10mph on the northwest side a few hundred yards behind, with wipers crossing the shot every half second. But if I did, I could do it. And so could you.

For every close up video you see on the news, there's 2-3 dozen others with the same shot who simply weren't out there to sell video. For every up close video you see on the news, there's 2-3 dozen people who could've done the same thing but chose not to. The guys in the media get seen and are, of course, the face of chasing to the muggles of the world. Remove the media exposure, and they're just another chaser (which they are anyway).

I'm not competitive. In fact I'm aggressively anti-competitive. I don't believe in "better" so much as simply different. Chasing needs all kinds. We don't need everyone being RT, and we don't need everyone being Ansel Adams. Neither approach/style is better than the other. They're just different.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I find the fact some chasers feel pressured by the daredevil/deep pockets guys to push themselves more to get "better" video fascinating. What a lot of people (mostly muggles but some chasers too) seem to not understand is, getting close doesn't require anything more than the will to do it. There is no magical or special "talent" that those who choose to get the closest possess. They just keep going when others stop. it's not mystical, it's not heroic, and it's nothing to be celebrated as making them above anyone else. They get close because it pays. Otherwise we'd see all these close videos that weren't branded and pre-packaged for screener use.

Shane, this is an interesting perspective. It is easy for me to see it the same way as you when I think of a photogenic, slow-moving tornado such as Campo, where it's standing there down the road, and you can stop at point A to take video, or just "keep going" down the road to point B and get up close and personal. Everyone gets the shot, just from a different distance. No big deal, no difference in talent level.

But when it comes to a more complex storm that is more HP in character, I think there is in fact some "talent" involved in understanding storm structure/evolution in such a scenario, and navigating into the notch despite low visibility and ultimately getting a view that you can't get if you play it more conservatively and pull back a ways.

Now you might argue that is not "talent," it is still nothing more than the "will" to get in there. But in a case like this, I translate having the "will" to do it as having the "guts" to do it. Personally, I don't necessarily have the guts to get in there in certain situations. So I guess that's where the "pressure" to push myself comes in - it makes me question whether I am being unnecessarily nervous/timid for backing off, or if I could have gotten the same shot myself.

As I noted in my post above, I am not necessarily changing my behavior or decision-making as a result of any of this. The point is that this self-questioning and second-guessing did not even exist in the past; it has arisen only against the backdrop of today's extreme chasing.

EDIT: Actually, as I consider this further, I think talent does come into play in almost any situation. If you are able to get yourself in a position where you *can* get close - whether or not you ultimately decide to - it shows some level of talent (and also luck - e.g., available road network). Shane is right though, the extreme chasers are not necessarily evidencing *greater* talent because, as he said in his original post, dozens of others probably had equal talent to get in a position where they *could have* gotten closer if they wanted to. I guess the purpose of this edit is to say that insofar as talent is concerned, the distinction I tried to make above between a Campo-type tornado and an HP tornado is probably not that relevant - except that I would probably say more talent is needed in the HP situation, but again that talent may be possessed both by those who get close and those who don't. But I get Shane's point, talent is not the differentiator between the extreme chasers and the others who *could have* gotten close but chose not to. I guess my own personal second-guessing alluded to above is asking myself - was I unable to get closer in a given situation because I *couldn't*, OR because I *chose* not to??? When it comes to "will" (as opposed to "talent") then I think the distinction I made above may still be relevant - i.e., more "will" is needed in a complex HP scenario than in a less intense situation.

 

[JamesCaruso]

That was amazing insight into the hobby that many don't have, and an all around fantastic post, Jim.

Rob, thanks much, means a lot coming from you

 

[Rob H]

I'd factor experience into that definition of talent as well. You can't exactly read a book on advanced/extreme chasing techniques. I think that's part of what's dangerous in how extreme chasing is presenting itself - any novice would assume it's normal to get within 1/4 mile of a large tornado but it's not something you try right away.

Has anyone mentioned the excited selfies/other pics of people in front of the Pilger twins? I don't blame any of them because we've probably all done this and it was an amazing sight. At least one of them had the class to publicly apologize after hearing what happened which was great.

The contrast of excited chasing while knowing after the fact that lives were being lost 3 miles off in the background is sobering to me. I don't have an answer or even really a question on this topic it's just something I'm trying to figure out now. Anyone have thoughts on it?

 

[Shane Adams]

I can't blame a chaser who's reveling in the moment, unless it's obvious a tornado is striking a populated area. I think a lot of chasers simply lose sight of the fact that people might be affected by what they see some times, because they're enjoying what they came out to see. Usually these chasers are back a ways, and might not be privy to the details of what's being hit. By contrast, I always find it odd why the chasers who are getting the money shots always "oh my god no!" all over their audio while simultaneously moving the camera angle, tilt, and zoom strategically to get the shot. IMO it almost sounds robotic or obligatory, definitely anything but genuine. Clearly their singular focus is to get the shot for monetary gain, which I'm perfectly fine with. But silence would be the better course I think, instead of the same old "oh nos" that just aren't convincing. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I have to call it as I see it.

There's a moment during the 5-3-99 F5 where I'm jumping up and down, whooping and hollering in total glee, because I'd never seen anything like that up until that moment. What I didn't know was the town of Bridge Creek was beginning to get decimated. Before that day, I had no idea Bridge Creek existed, and from our view the tornado seemed to be in open country. Once I realized what had happened, I didn't really feel bad (I'd done nothing wrong), but I do feel the need to mention to people, anytime I'm in the room if it's being watched, that I didn't know the tornado was affecting a town at the time. We purposely dropped the tornado and headed back west to the next storm, once it was obvious it wasn't going to stop and was headed into a densely populated area. I have a good friend/chase partner who pulled dead bodies out of rubble that day just miles down stream from where we let the F5 go. I wanted no part of that.

 

[Jeff Wright]

I'm just surprised we haven't seen more done with drones. I'm thinking a drone/balloon combo might give one good stability. The inflow is such that a short balloon chain will be entrained into the funnel where a drone itself would be flipped. I think something large and heavy might allow less jitter aloft
http://gizmodo.com/the-kite-borne-camera-that-captured-post-quake-san-fran-514345937