NWS office calls chaser tornado reports false, social media feud ensues

[Dan Robinson]

As long as Twitter doesn't try going the Facebook route with their feed, it's already a great platform that has potential for these types of reporting issues. Each NWS office can simply follow only the chasers they know to be reputable/trustworthy. Then bam, the reports are filtered. There again is the question of how does one get on that 'list' and/or how does each office know who to trust - but it seems that with the small number of chasers that are out there reporting often (or known locally) it shouldn't be too difficult to pull off.

 

[Robert Forry]

when my cell phone does the same thing

Right on Ben. Last I checked, even in the local Skywarn talks they tell you to call the 800 number to give your reports. Has worked fine for me over the years. Heck, the NWS placefile in GR3 displays that number works great. In the end its whatever works best for you. If they decide to to issue a warning, that's on them.

 

[B. Dean Berry]

At $1500+ per radio, I don't see [m]any spotters let alone chasers popping this out on their Christmas list. Plus as mentioned, it doesn't cover most of Chaser Alley. SpotterNetwork is the way to go. This is 2015, not 2000

I buy and sell used gear all day. I'm looking at a UHF XTS3000 with a Federal flash, capable of their systems, sitting right here on my desk. It cost me $120. As far as coverage, give it time. The Feds are currently working on building a nationwide 700MHz trunk. In any case, where there is coverage, it could be an excellent tool.

As much as people want to hold up cell phones and social media over radio these days, they all too often forget how fast those cell towers can be non-functional, especially if the tornado you are spotting just look out the power to that site, and there isn't a functioning redundant power system, or the site gets damaged or wiped. Also, social media creates the exact problem we are seeing that caused this little public scuffle. A modification of the old saying - "If you see something, say something, and we will promptly ignore it".

Turnaround time is important, too. Social media/internet reports come in, someone at a desk at the WFO looks at it, then has to try to verify it on radar, figure out who it is, etc. The warning comes 5-8 minutes later, if it comes at all. Under this solution, that I've been proposing for years, they wouldn't be on that segment of airtime if they weren't trained, checked, vetted, and granted. The WFO will know "Hey, it came in over Federal radio, it's probably the real deal" and issue the warning within a minute or two.

Radio. It's not the newest thing. It's not modern, digital, graphical sexiness with a computer in the palm of your hand. It doesn't have hashtags and trendy flair. It does, however, work when it's needed, and works well. It's reliable, and is it's own reason for why it still exists in this modern age. I don't discourage use of newer tech, for certain, but nothing will ever replace land mobile radio for what it does.

 

[rdale]

I buy and sell used gear all day. I'm looking at a UHF XTS3000 with a Federal flash, capable of their systems, sitting right here on my desk. It cost me $120.

EBay is not an acceptable alternative in the grand scheme You aren't getting on FirstNet with a $120 radio.

As far as coverage, give it time. The Feds are currently working on building a nationwide 700MHz trunk. In any case, where there is coverage, it could be an excellent tool.

I expect that to come online in the next 10-20 years. In any case, I have not heard one peep of FirstNet being expanded outside of first responders.

Turnaround time is important, too. Social media/internet reports come in, someone at a desk at the WFO looks at it, then has to try to verify it on radar, figure out who it is, etc. The warning comes 5-8 minutes later, if it comes at all. Under this solution, that I've been proposing for years, they wouldn't be on that segment of airtime if they weren't trained, checked, vetted, and granted. The WFO will know "Hey, it came in over Federal radio, it's probably the real deal" and issue the warning within a minute or two.

1) They better not say "Hey, it came in over Federal radio, so let's not verify an just pop a TOR box." 2) Using the Internet puts the report directly ON the radar screen with an exact lat/long and direction the feature is from the reporter. You don't get any faster than that...

In any case, as Ben and others who do this far more than me have pointed out, adding another comm tool to the arsenal is a non-starter.

 

[B. Dean Berry]

And this type of thinking is exactly why I said "it will probably never happen". There are people who think that newer is always better, and people who absolutely fear any kind of change, and very few people that see both sides of the coin in between.

Voice seems to have taken a back seat to flashy internet whiz-bangs, and that probably won't change until it inexplicably fails one day. Unfortunately, that type of a failure will likely result in casualties, but we will see.

As far as FirstNet is concerned, I've already seen some talk of leasing talkgroups to corporations in exchange for funding, so providing talkgroups for one of it's own agencies sounds like something that could definitely be done.

In any case, I have always felt that the best balance of equipment for any industry or discipline to use the new tech that is available, and keep the old tech as a backup for when the new tech fails. WFO's in the Midwest seem to integrate both, fairly well. The problem I can see is with other WFO's centered in trendy cities, where they completely abandon everything old for social media, then get trolled by internetum ad infinitum, and don't trust the reports anymore.

 

[rdale]

And this type of thinking is exactly why I said "it will probably never happen". There are people who think that newer is always better, and people who absolutely fear any kind of change, and very few people that see both sides of the coin in between.

No, when something you propose is not a good idea, that's why it'll never happen. It has nothing to do with people who think newer is always better. It has to do with reasons that everyone in this forum so far has supported - there is no need to invest in a radio platform.

The problem I can see is with other WFO's centered in trendy cities, where they completely abandon everything old for social media, then get trolled by internetum ad infinitum, and don't trust the reports anymore.

What the heck is a "trendy city"? I don't know of any WFO that doesn't have a ham radio in it. If you're going to suggest radios, instead of saying that in 20 years we can use FirstNet (which will probably be IP-based by then anyways ) why not push that aspect?

 

[Ben Holcomb]

I think the only one scared of change is you - Social Media is quite robust and one of the better ways to report in my opinion, and quite public. A radio network has a lot of downfalls including equipment cost, installation, coverage, and just generally voice is kind of annoying to me in the first place. Then you have to add in the extra time to relay your position. All of that can be done in a quick click of a button and a few strokes of a keyboard on Spotter Network. If Spotter Network goes down or even cell phones go down, there is always a HAM radio fall back. Adding another radio seems redundant, unnecessary and downright annoying honestly.

 

[B. Dean Berry]

If you can't see the problem with relying solely on social media for your spotter reports, even after longtime pro's like Mr. Faidley enunciate almost in bullet-point format exactly why it's a bad idea, then I don't know what to tell you. The original subject of this thread is a direct example of what happens when WFO's ask for intel via open social media platforms, where anyone can post a report, real or not. For the record, I am opposed to taking reports from the general public over such a platform, but not opposed to more controlled and closed internet platforms, like SN or NWSChat. As far as federal systems and FirstNet, it is an idea. A suggestion and nothing more.

As far as ham radio, it is very useful, in places where it is deployed properly. An example of proper deployment of a Skywarn ham radio network is the Wakefield WFO (AKQ). The Skywarn desk at AKQ, and it's coordinator, have set out Federal ICS205 forms, detailing specific areas of the CWA, which repeaters to use, complete programming info, and uses a wide area APRS system, which tracks and can pinpoint the exact location of a spotter calling a report as it happens. That is proper deployment that took many years to establish. It works so well that most reports during the spring/summer to AKQ come in over the radio as opposed to other methods.

Conversely, if you look at the Pittsburgh WFO (PBZ), you will find a ham radio at a desk that is always turned off. You'll find a ham radio coordinator who has a small group of aging buddies who refuse to go staff the desk during severe weather, refuse to let anyone else join, have not trained net control operators, and a very basic PDF of repeaters by county, many of which are no longer on the air, and the list hasn't been updated in years. As a result, the ham radio program basically collapsed, and is nearly useless. They turned to social media, and fake reports do abound, including a recent incident in which a photo of a factory smoke plume going into a dark cloud was reshared and reported as a tornado hundreds of times. Of course, a dedicated 800 number for Skywarn is used, and they gave it out on facebook to the general public, rendering it as useless as facebook.

It's a matter of finesse. Any tool in the box can be a gamechanger, provided that it's deployed properly and managed skillfully. If you have a coordinator or a WCM that sucks at managing available systems, anything you use to collect information will be worthless, no matter how new or old it is.

 

[Ben Holcomb]

And you just illustrated why HAM radio is a big problem - Way too many egos in some places where they end up not serving the people they are trying to serve. SpotterNetwork has it right in about 95% of the instances. It's a great tool, just needs a little modernizing (Phone clients)

 

[rdale]

I remember my early Skywarn days when the hams got upset when I used the phone to relay reports from our WSO to the WSFO. We needed to use a 10meter repeater in between Toledo and Cleveland to reach them via radio. As can happen - if a storm was between us, the 10m radio was nearly useless. So I'd call it in with my {gasp} landline from the op desk. From that point on I began to realize why people think hams can be a little.. well...

 

[kevin-palmer]

I've submitted reports via twitter before and sometimes it's acknowledged, other times I'm ignored. I think it depends on the NWS office. Would including a spotter ID number add more validity to a report? There's only so much info you can put in a single tweet. For more urgent reports like a tornado I have always planned to make a phone call. I have all the nearby NWS office phone numbers stored in my phone but I have yet to use them.

 

[B. Dean Berry]

I used to run a Skywarn group from about 1997 to 2006, and had problems with the local hams. We'd not be able to place reports because they'd tie up the repeater, droning on and on about what they did that day, dialysis appointments, and (hehehehe hehe he) laughing while keying down for 4 minutes at a time. We were local, so we just rented space on an 800MHz analog Type II business trunk, and bought some radios on ebay. Our spotters would call in from the field, one guy at a desk would phone the NWS' landline, and pass the report. Worked great in the 90's/early 2000's.

I use NWS Chat right now. I might have to try SN.

 

[Wes Carter]

You do not respond in the way McGowan did. You do not call an organization "***holes" and throw a tantrum in the public eye. If you have a problem with someone, handle it in private. Acting professional in the public eye is absolutely necessary, especially when you have such a large following like McGowan.

Second, you do not threaten to "boycott" storm reporting. Whatever happened to this "saving lives" attitude? Chasers are there to report ground truth and, even though there was a disagreement yesterday on the report, that is still your purpose.

Yes, the NWS office should not have called McGowan a liar. But, he has to know how to handle himself.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I agree with your assessment for the most part, but I doubt this thread would even exist if Dick and his followers hadn't blown up on social media. I don't know Mr McGowan so I might be totally wrong about this, but I seriously doubt he's going to stop making reports. I think he will place public safety above his ego, or at least I hope so. Everything could have been handled better, but at least there is a very good conversation going on right now about how to improve the process.

I'm going to bow out now on this issue because I think people like me have beat the moral and ethical horse to death.

 

[calvinkaskey]

Previous posters have commented on the social media feud so I'll forgo that. What pissed me off was a chaser posted NWSChat logs directly onto social media. It was slightly amusing though that the individual who posted the chat log did so in a public forum almost assuring his quick removal from the program. Storm chasers are a part of the Integrated Warning Team along with broadcast media, emergency management, local spotter groups, and certain VOST elements. Leaking confidential chat logs puts a strain on the trust required for a IWT. As someone who has spent years building up trust with Texas NWS offices as part of my VOST duties I believe the 'leaking' of chat logs was probably the most damaging aspect of this conflict. I hope Dick and the Amarillo office can sit down together and make this a learning experience. I know both Amarillo and Dick have made amends on social media.

The guy that is in the NWS chat is fairly new to the Amarillo CWA, but what is surprising is that he is the WCM (Warning Coordination Meteorologist) for the office now (replaced the one that recently went to another office) meaning he isn't a newbie by any means in regards to being in the NWS.

Do you work for the NWS Bradey Kendrick in Norman? Sorry I've just been seeing your rating history.

 

[calvinkaskey]

Reverse 911 is a horrible idea for alerting. Not sure what this has to do with the AMA issue anyways?

So what do you call it when they alert your phone of weather warnings if it isn't a revere 911?