Location of event

[Tim Shriver]

"I'd check with the NWS again as I think something was just missed in translation... A report of direction without estimated distance can cause quite a bit of confusion. That might be an area to work on training, but to just say "Don't estimate a distance" cannot be what the office told you. "

It's in the docs I have supplied. TLCS does not allow it. Only if the WFO/Sulcom
asks for it in a followup. I will see if I can find anything more in print from the spotter classes themselves.

Otherwise, come on over to any of the classes this Spring and I will buy you
a dinner at Olive Garden if I am wrong. Rusty does most of the classes.
Or drop a dime and call Rusty, it is a 1-800 number too. (no dime drop)

Simple, I have a report come in. says the spotter is 2.5 miles WSW of DeForest in Dane county. The tornado is to the spotters NW.

I look on the radar, find the preset reference point in DeForest, find the spotters location and look to the NW on the radar. Wow, there is a cell there.

Seems to work well for getting the reports in fast, but lacks some in suppling
DAT information. But then when they do take a report they usually have a
way to contact the spotter later for more information or actually have them ride with the DAT if it is a hard to find path. Also having the ability to replay the
radar at street level helps plan out where to look for damage.


Tim

 

[rdale]

We've already seen an incident this year where lack of distance being reported resulted in a warning being missed... It's hard to follow your entire reply - but to clarify the "official" stance, it's pretty stupid to tell people to NOT estimate a distance to an event.

 

[Tim Shriver]

We've already seen an incident this year where lack of distance being reported resulted in a warning being missed... It's hard to follow your entire reply - but to clarify the "official" stance, it's pretty stupid to tell people to NOT estimate a distance to an event.

To an "aloft event" only, not all "event"s..

What warning was that? In the KMKX area?

You may be right, they may be wrong, or the other way around.
I simply put it out there for discussion. Saying something is "stupid" does not
really help explain why though?

I do think that folks, in general, have a problem with estimating anything over a 1/8 to 1/4 mile.

Experienced spotters/chasers and folks working in their own backyards would
probably have a better ability to do so. But the persons eye site, judgment and experience all play into this.

I can see their concern...but I am sort of 50/50 on this. Thus the thread...

Tim

 

[rdale]

I'm not saying I can tell the difference between 2 miles and 2.5 miles (or 3 for that matter.) I do think I can tell a difference between 1 mile and 10 miles away. If I am on the southeast edge of a N/S line, and looking up the line to say "Tornado to my NNW" it could be in any of those cells, and for a QLCS situation the forecaster may not have a clue where in the line. If I can say "1 mile to my NNW" or "10 miles to my NNW" that gives him a much better idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Adam Lucio]

I understand the debate here, but Im wondering why it even exists?

If I am Joe Blow reporting a funnel/tornado/whatever to the guys at the NWS and I tell them I am sitting on 3rd st near the town of Narfleton looking west...wouldn't they in turn be able to look at the radar and know where the storm is going and thus where to issue the warning? I mean, isn't that why we are there, to relay ground truth to what is being seen on radar?

Last I checked there was no initiative to narrow down tornado warnings to only cover a mile on each side of it. I think the polygon warnings we have now work great.

I agree that distance and whatnot should be reported as accurately as possible...but really...is being off by a mile going to make that big a difference when it comes to issuing a warning?

 

[rdale]

I agree that distance and whatnot should be reported as accurately as possible...but really...is being off by a mile going to make that big a difference when it comes to issuing a warning?

Of course not... The "debate" is that Tim thinks that you should not report distance at all, and his group won't relay that information to the NWS if you do report it. I disagree with that philosophy.

 

[Keith Wilson]

I understand the debate here, but Im wondering why it even exists?

If I am Joe Blow reporting a funnel/tornado/whatever to the guys at the NWS and I tell them I am sitting on 3rd st near the town of Narfleton looking west...wouldn't they in turn be able to look at the radar and know where the storm is going and thus where to issue the warning? I mean, isn't that why we are there, to relay ground truth to what is being seen on radar?

Last I checked there was no initiative to narrow down tornado warnings to only cover a mile on each side of it. I think the polygon warnings we have now work great.

I agree that distance and whatnot should be reported as accurately as possible...but really...is being off by a mile going to make that big a difference when it comes to issuing a warning?

This follows my line of thinking for the most part, but I also see where reporting this when you are looking west at a line of cells (possibly approaching Narfleton at a SW/NE angle) could cause some confusion when trying to identify on radar exactly which cell you are reporting on (and maybe I am splitting hairs). In this case you would hope to receive reports from multiple spotters and multiple locations to help pinpoint the event.

 

[Lou Ruh]

If I am Joe Blow reporting a funnel/tornado/whatever to the guys at the NWS and I tell them I am sitting on 3rd st near the town of Narfleton looking west...wouldn't they in turn be able to look at the radar and know where the storm is going and thus where to issue the warning? I mean, isn't that why we are there, to relay ground truth to what is being seen on radar?

Well ... that ... and also reporting things that may not be evident on radar. Weaker tornadic events far enough away from the radar may not have anything evident on radar to verify. A classic case is the Honey Brook, PA Black Friday tornado of 1999 that did over $2 million in damage ... they had nothing on radar to compare to other than a solid line of showers, so, an accurate location was vital.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Of course not... The "debate" is that Tim thinks that you should not report distance at all, and his group won't relay that information to the NWS if you do report it. I disagree with that philosophy.

rdale: Stop making this my thing! It is not my philosophy. You are, once again, not reading my posts and turning this into an Anti-Tim thing. But then that is your goal.

If you would read the comments I have posted, such as "I can see their concern...but I am sort of 50/50 on this. Thus the thread".

It is clear you do not intend to discuss this, but rather call it stupid and align
it with me so that you can attack me once again.

It is so clear!

Tim

 

[Tim Shriver]

Well ... that ... and also reporting things that may not be evident on radar. Weaker tornadic events far enough away from the radar may not have anything evident on radar to verify. A classic case is the Honey Brook, PA Black Friday tornado of 1999 that did over $2 million in damage ... they had nothing on radar to compare to other than a solid line of showers, so, an accurate location was vital.

I agree with that. Same with the Westfield tornado here in WI. It was not where the NWS thought it was. Spotter reports provide it to be elsewhere.


Tim

 

[Tim Shriver]

This follows my line of thinking for the most part, but I also see where reporting this when you are looking west at a line of cells (possibly approaching Narfleton at a SW/NE angle) could cause some confusion when trying to identify on radar exactly which cell you are reporting on (and maybe I am splitting hairs). In this case you would hope to receive reports from multiple spotters and multiple locations to help pinpoint the event.

Multiple spotters is what helps. This works the best using the current
protocols KMKX wants us to use.

But then when issuing a warning, the whole group or line would or could become suspect and a warning issued would cover the the severe section of the line as its moves into other areas. Thus pin pointing is not as needed.
The warning covers this in its wording and the polygon placement. "in or near" the warned area.

For warnings, I see this working. But for DAT it leaves some to be desired.
But then when folks do put in distance reports, they end up being anywhere
from .5 miles to 5 miles off.

So in the end, distance is important. But can be derived from the current KMKX/Sulcom report protocols and using radar. But in some rare cases this could cause an issue if the tornado decouples from the group.

But for DAT it leaves many questions., but then followups can be done with the reporting spotter, using radar and other spotter reports.

No matter which way ones does it, the fact remains, that out of the
12 or so DAT activations we have had, over half of the reports and their
locations were .5 - 5 miles off.

Training for distance recognition, using a good GPS, not spotting/chasing alone and preplanning seem to be coming out of this as ways to improve
location accuracy.

Tim

 

[rdale]

It is clear you do not intend to discuss this

Apparently it isn't clear to you... I am discussing this. There is no advantage to ignoring, disregarding, or throwing out distance reports.

There is good in training people how to judge distances. I guess I don't see what more needs to be "discussed" about this, or how it comes across as "anti-Tim."

 

[Lanny Dean]

Apparently it isn't clear to you... I am discussing this. There is no advantage to ignoring, disregarding, or throwing out distance reports.

There is good in training people how to just distances. I guess I don't see what more needs to be "discussed" about this, or how it comes across as "anti-Tim."

I agree with Rdale...I did not take his post as "anti Tim". I think we are all in agreement that there could be better ways of doing things than current.
I don't know or understand how or why ANY reports can be accepted without some type of distance given, estimated or otherwise.
As I have stated already, feel free to contact Jim Sellers as I believe he could/would be able to help you a little.

I don't know what else to say except good luck.

 

[Keith Wilson]

The tool that I have been using for local events is Google Earth. I pretty much know most of the towns, roads, and other landmarks in the 5 county area that I am most likely to spot/chase in, and I have numerous preferred locations to spot from.
I am not blessed with all of the technology available, so I use the "measure distance" tool on GE and mark down the distance from point "A" (my potential location) to the above mentioned landmarks or points of reference. In doing this, I am also further familiarizing myself with the area.
I have been asked for an estimated distance to the event when reporting, but only a few times. I gave it my best estimate based on my knowledge of the area and made sure they knew that is all it was. I will volunteer information like, "the event is between my location and the town of Podunk which is 5 miles to my NE.

I have found that most of the time if I give my exact location accurately, the direction the event is from me, and the direction the event is moving, then the NWS can figure the rest out from radar. Warnings resulting from my reports or adjusted due to my reports have tended to be very accurate. We don't have many active or mobile spotters in this area either, so the NWSFO may only receive a couple of reports on any given event in my area.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Apparently it isn't clear to you... I am discussing this. There is no advantage to ignoring, disregarding, or throwing out distance reports.

There is good in training people how to judge distances. I guess I don't see what more needs to be "discussed" about this, or how it comes across as "anti-Tim."

"The "debate" is that Tim thinks that you should not report distance at all, and his group won't relay that information to the NWS if you do report it. I disagree with that philosophy."

A. "Tim thinks that you should not report distance at all"

Incorrect, please show me where I say this? I think I said I was 50/50 on this.

B. "his group won't relay that information to the NWS"

Wrong again, "my group" is not allowed to via the Ham 2 meter backbone used by our WFO for receiving ham storm reports. Not I or my group "wont" do this.
We will when asked or allowed to.


The question/debate is what do other do for storm location.

But again rdale you didn't read, understand or even care what I posted.

Your motives are so clear rdale.

Everyone, thanks for the thoughts, sorry for the static and have yourself
a great Christmas! (you too rdale)

Tim