Silver Lining Tours vans rolled in Kansas

[Robert Edmonds]

The question that needs to be asked: Is the tour operator chasing for his/her customers, or is he chasing as if chasing solo? One of these is not acceptable.

You're making the assumption that chasing on your own should be less risky. However, if those customers haven't seen a tornado and you're nearing the end of the tour, I would not be surprised if the operator might do stuff they normally would not on their own.

 

[Randy Denzer]

Was I really being hyperbolic about decrying the "anything less than 10 miles is irresponsible" bit?

I'll make a deal with all first responders. If I am ever hit by a tornado, don't respond. Leave me alone. Stay out of my choices and I'll stay out of yours. Deal?

Dan,
Impossible deal.. There is a legal duty to respond for all responders in the USA.

You can wear an advanced directive or living will, but it has to be signed by your physician within a year.

Randy

 

[Spencer Dant]

The question that needs to be asked: Is the tour operator chasing for his/her customers, or is he chasing as if chasing solo? One of these is not acceptable.

This is a fair question but the connotation you created at the end is unfair. If you're going on a tour, whether it is a storm chasing tour or a bird watching tour, you're submitting yourself to the habits of the person leading the tour. If you go on a sub-Saharan safari ride, the tour guide is going to get you within range of the lions, because that's what you're there for. You trust that the tour guide knows how to get you to the lions, and you pay for it. The tour guide, as they reasonably should, enjoys being up close and personal with the lions and all the other wildlife, and while they understand that there is an inherent risk to driving a Jeep in front of a stampede of elephants, they're doing it anyway, both for themselves and for their customers. These are both acceptable - if the tour guide had no personal interest and experience seeing the wildlife, he has no business being your tour guide, so as a well paying customer you should hope that he is guiding your tour just as he would if he were out there on his own, no strings attached and no holding back.

The same goes for any other tour, storm chasing tours included. You're paying the tour guide because you trust that they can get you there, and you want the tour guide to give you the full experience that drove him to be enthusiastic about his business in the first place. You want those same pictures of the lions or the same video of the tornadoes as he gets. That's why you paid him.

 

[Randy Denzer]

Folks,
Any time someone calls 911 to report an accident, injury, fire, haz mat, Etc., first responders are obligated by law to respond and render aid. There is no, "Don't help me if I get hit by a tornado" waiver.

And, this is a good thing.

RD

 

[Randy Denzer]

Hot air Balloon tours had the same issue until a couple years back. On July 30, 2016, sixteen folks died in a crash just down the road. I responded and assisted the NTSB with investigating and managing the incident in Maxwell, Texas. This accident was a game changer and a tragic loss of life of 15 folks who REALLY did not know the real danger when they took off. 16 died. They all signed liability releases. This was a game changer for Balloon tours.

Simple question? What exactly will it take to get regulations on Tornado intercepting tour groups? Do we look away because this was a "Minor" incident with 12 injuries that tied up 23 responders during a natural disaster in their response territory?

Causes, loss of situational awareness, Satellite tornados, wet roads, poor judgement, and all the items being discussed are a big part of telling the true story. But, in the end, tell the raw truth; discuss the real effects,

and, most importantly, discuss that if nothing changes, is this going to happen again?

 

[Dan Robinson]

Randy, what type of law or oversight do you want to realistically see happen with chase tours? Is there some type of overseeing agency that would have jurisdiction on this type of operation like the FAA does with balloons? I for one would absolutely welcome an official agency like the NTSB to take a look at this. Unlike many, they will actually look at all available data, investigate everything throroughly, and arrive at accurate conclusions and recommendations completely free from the hyperbole that we so often see in matters such as this. Who do I need to call? I'll get a petition and social media campaign started today.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I just Tweeted at them.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1135610201049128961

 

[Ben Holcomb]

Joplin tour group

I don't know what tour group that was, but I would have been livid to have been put in such a life-threatening situation had I been a passenger.

Umm, that's Silver Lining Tours as well...

 

[Steve Holmes]

Here are two articles on the Texas balloon crash Randy mentioned:

FAA pressured to crack down on hot air balloons

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is coming under increasing pressure to crack down on hot air balloon operations after federal investigators blamed lax regulations for a deadly crash last …

thehill.com

New Commercial Hot-Air Balloon Safety Program

www.faa.gov

Not sure how much the balloon-tours situation applies here. The FAA is the balloons' regulating agency. The NTSB report laid the blame on the operator, who, it said, went up in unsafe weather and had drugs in his system that could have impaired his judgment. The new regulations focus almost exclusively on pilots' fitness and qualifications.

Regulations will not happen based on last week's incident. I can't hang with you folks on meteorology, but I do know how things get done in government. A dozen injuries won't stir up enough indignation to force a change. Too "under the radar." A dozen deaths just might.

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

You're making the assumption that chasing on your own should be less risky. However, if those customers haven't seen a tornado and you're nearing the end of the tour, I would not be surprised if the operator might do stuff they normally would not on their own.

I was inferring that if you're by yourself, do whatever you want...drive right into the tornado for all I care, but if you're responsible for the health and wellness of others, be more careful, despite them signing papers and handing you money. This doesn't just apply to tours...if you're on a "chase team(!!)" and driving, you're the responsible one for everyone in the vehicle.

Perhaps this is an unpopular opinion, but if you asked law enforcement or an insurer, guess who's responsible?

 

[Marc R. O'Leary]

This is a fair question but the connotation you created at the end is unfair. If you're going on a tour, whether it is a storm chasing tour or a bird watching tour, you're submitting yourself to the habits of the person leading the tour. If you go on a sub-Saharan safari ride, the tour guide is going to get you within range of the lions, because that's what you're there for. You trust that the tour guide knows how to get you to the lions, and you pay for it. The tour guide, as they reasonably should, enjoys being up close and personal with the lions and all the other wildlife, and while they understand that there is an inherent risk to driving a Jeep in front of a stampede of elephants, they're doing it anyway, both for themselves and for their customers. These are both acceptable - if the tour guide had no personal interest and experience seeing the wildlife, he has no business being your tour guide, so as a well paying customer you should hope that he is guiding your tour just as he would if he were out there on his own, no strings attached and no holding back.

The same goes for any other tour, storm chasing tours included. You're paying the tour guide because you trust that they can get you there, and you want the tour guide to give you the full experience that drove him to be enthusiastic about his business in the first place. You want those same pictures of the lions or the same video of the tornadoes as he gets. That's why you paid him.

Its just a matter of responsibility. If I were leading an African safari, I would say hey look, lions over there, we'll keep a safe distance. I wouldn't drive right up ten feet from the lions in a jeep with no doors and assume nothing bad could happen.

I hope Roger's business survives this. He's a legend. But if it doesn't, it's not his customer's fault.

 

[Manuel Salgado]

There seems to be some projecting here on what is being discussed. I view the responsibilities of a single chaser, or even a group of chasers deciding to do their own thing, and a tour companies actions as two completely different set of circumstances. When you are offering a service to people who don't do something on their own, you are saying that you are an expert and you will make the appropriate decisions so that the customer is able to experience an event while remaining safe. Because you are accepting this responsibility, you must then be safer than you otherwise would be. It really makes me happy to see tour operates posting in this thread and clearly stating this ideal. What anyone would do as a single chaser is completely irrelevant because it is not the same situation.

I have no experience what so ever with SLT or the operators. I understand they've got quiet a storied past and are definitely experienced chasers. I also don't see why that matters in the least. Regardless of your experience level, if you put your customers in so much danger that they really aren't far from death (and if your in a vehicle that is rolling you aren't that far from dying) then you've made some serious mistakes and you should be introspective about those mistakes. The public Facebook post from SLT is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion. To downplay the event, and to act as though it could happen to anyone (it clearly can't, as there are other tour operators on here who have clearly stated that they would never be in that situation because it strikes me as common sense that you shouldn't take a tour underneath an HP meso) is simply stating that you've learned nothing from this event and that it is likely to occur again.

I've seen mention of this ruining SLT's owners, and I don't understand why that would be the case. Insurance should cover your liability here, and if they were operating without insurance well then they took an insane risk. That level of planning on a part of a business does not inspire confidence on how things were run.

Look, I'm not here to disparage anyone on a personal level. I don't know them, and I"m sure they're not bad people. But there are plenty of people who aren't bad people and undertake negligent actions on a daily basis. Being a good person or having a lot of experience does not free you from accountability. Maybe they'll have a day in court and the evidence says that they weren't negligent at all, but the evidence we've seen and the actions that we've seen don't point in that direction. In my opinion anyway.

As far as the first responders, they have a duty to perform and they honored that duty. Nothing about that duty means that they have to like negligent decisions that led to their time being taken. You can be a first responder and do your job and still think the reasons you had to act were idiotic. However, someone mentioned that they are doing this for no tax benefit and I think that couldn't be farther from the truth. Storm chasers buy a lot of gas, a lot of Allsups burritos, and spend a lot of money in hotels that would otherwise rarely get guests. Storm chasing may be a pain to the people of the plains at times, but I have a hard time believe that it doesn't generate money for the communities that chasers frequent.

 

[Joshua Nall]

Why do people have to die? Explain to me how that is acceptable?

People don't have to die but sometimes they do just like with horseback riding. Isn't it acceptable that activity sometimes hurts people or kills people? The only difference I can come up with is an emotional one... tornadoes are more scarry. But not to me, haha. It would be interesting to look up statistics on horseback riding deaths and injuries and then even horseback riding incidents involving groups of people that pay to go on guided horseback rides.

 

[S Kalka]

Someone earlier asked "Should a chasing-related incident be covered by the injured party primarily because services are being rendered to non-residents of the area?" And the answer is yes. I have been a volunteer firefighter in Illinois for 29 years and my fire district has always billed the insurance company of non-residents for responding to accidents if services were actually rendered. You have to remember that the equipment, fuel, training and maybe wages of the first responders were paid for by the residents for their benefit, not someone else.

 

[John Farley]

One thing I keep hearing in this discussion is something like "if you are by yourself do whatever you want." But one of the main complaints I hear about this incident is that it tied up emergency response resources that were also needed elsewhere. So please think about this: Even if you are chasing by yourself, and you knowingly put yourself in a dangerous position, it is not just you who is affected, at least potentially. If you end up needing help, you WILL tie up emergency response resources that may be needed elsewhere. And no, there is no way that you can, with any impact, say "don't bother rescuing me if I get in trouble." More broadly, I am treating this incident as another thing I can learn from, and I think that is a good way for all of us to look at it.