Silver Lining Tours vans rolled in Kansas

[Robert Edmonds]

Field Offices | FMCSA

The field organizations deliver program services to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) partners and customers. This organization consists of Field Operations, Service center and State-level motor carrier division offices.These offices are here to answer your questions and...

www.fmcsa.dot.gov

SLT is based out of Colorado, correct? Maybe start with that state's FMCSA office.

 

[Drew Terril]

Since I deal with transporting goods rather than people, I don't know off hand in what manner FMCSA regulations apply here. While I seldomly encounter tour groups in the field, I don't recall seeing a DOT/ICC number OR an IFTA sticker on the sides of any tour vans that I have seen. If they do not require a DOT/ICC number (and are not applicable to IFTA), then I'm not certain FMCSA would potentially have jurisdiction here. HOWEVER, if they do have DOT/ICC number, then they are absolutely under FMCSA jurisdiction. I believe this will be the key piece of information that will determine who to reach out to from the regulatory side. It would almost certainly be easier to point someone to FMCSA than it would be to find an applicable state agency, either in the state based out of, or the state then incident occurred in, or both.

Bear in mind, I don't have any first hand knowledge, so there are a lot of "ifs" in my statement. But those are my thoughts as someone who has worked a DOT regulated job for several years now.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

Since I deal with transporting goods rather than people, I don't know off hand in what manner FMCSA regulations apply here. While I seldomly encounter tour groups in the field, I don't recall seeing a DOT/ICC number OR an IFTA sticker on the sides of any tour vans that I have seen. If they do not require a DOT/ICC number (and are not applicable to IFTA), then I'm not certain FMCSA would potentially have jurisdiction here. HOWEVER, if they do have DOT/ICC number, then they are absolutely under FMCSA jurisdiction. I believe this will be the key piece of information that will determine who to reach out to from the regulatory side. It would almost certainly be easier to point someone to FMCSA than it would be to find an applicable state agency, either in the state based out of, or the state then incident occurred in, or both.

Bear in mind, I don't have any first hand knowledge, so there are a lot of "ifs" in my statement. But those are my thoughts as someone who has worked a DOT regulated job for several years now.

They once did have a usdot number. Reread my posts... State regulators push it off as a federal thing, federal regulators push it off as a state thing. I still highly doubt anyone carries insurance where they truthfully described their activities. Back when SLT had a usdot number, I called the insurer listed asking if I could buy a similar policy. The company representative was surprised that they insured a storm chasing tour company, and the following year they had a different company listed. They don't have a usdot number anymore, so you can't look up their insurer anymore either.

 

[Drew Terril]

They once did have a usdot number. Reread my posts... State regulators push it off as a federal thing, federal regulators push it off as a state thing. I still highly doubt anyone carries insurance where they truthfully described their activities. Back when SLT had a usdot number, I called the insurer listed asking if I could buy a similar policy. The company representative was surprised that they insured a storm chasing tour company, and the following year they had a different company listed. They don't have a usdot number anymore, so you can't look up their insurer anymore either.

With all due respect, I did read, and you made no mention of whether they had a DOT/ICC number or not. That's why I centered my response around that, and the presence of such would determine if they fall under FMCSA authority or not. Now that you've specified that they do not, then no, they do not fall under FMCSA jurisdiction. Like I said, I've been in the trucking industry for a while now, so that's the angle I was coming from on this. No need to be snippy about it.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

With all due respect, I did read, and you made no mention of whether they had a DOT/ICC number or not. That's why I centered my response around that, and the presence of such would determine if they fall under FMCSA authority or not. Now that you've specified that they do not, then no, they do not fall under FMCSA jurisdiction. Like I said, I've been in the trucking industry for a while now, so that's the angle I was coming from on this. No need to be snippy about it.

This is why it is going to take someone to die before this gets sorted out. Tours say they are not a interstate for-hire operator. They claim transportation is not central to the operation, and thus do not register. This keeps the happy middle ground (for the regulators who don't then need to do anything and the company), except for the customer...

 

[Warren Faidley]

Not sure why she wants to talk to chasers? Was she somehow advised not to pursue other options? Something does not sound right.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Not sure why she wants to talk to chasers? Was she somehow advised not to pursue other options? Something does not sound right.

I agree it seems a little odd, I mean we haven’t heard much from Roger or any of the passengers, and then all of a sudden there’s this...

On the other hand, I could see the difficulty in even knowing where to start when you’re from another country, unfamiliar with how to navigate US laws, trying to follow up remotely from so far away, etc.

But I would think she’d be collaborating with fellow tour group members rather than reaching out to someone that wasn’t involved and that she doesn’t know...

Also, she wants to remain anonymous, but how many female chasers from Australia could have possibly been on that tour??

It’s an intriguing development new nonetheless...

 

[Joey Ketcham]

I agree it seems a little odd, I mean we haven’t heard much from Roger or any of the passengers, and then all of a sudden there’s this...

On the other hand, I could see the difficulty in even knowing where to start when you’re from another country, unfamiliar with how to navigate US laws, trying to follow up remotely from so far away, etc.

But I would think she’d be collaborating with fellow tour group members rather than reaching out to someone that wasn’t involved and that she doesn’t know...

Also, she wants to remain anonymous, but how many female chasers from Australia could have possibly been on that tour??

It’s an intriguing development new nonetheless...

Your post, as well as Warren's post was kind of the point I was attempting to make over the weekend, and ended up taking a ton of heat over, and eventually was deleted. I know my opinion was not popular, but I stand by what I said. Makes no sense. Seems odd that this lady, who lives in Australia, would reach out to some random chaser/TV Meteorologist, for advice on what is a legal matter. It would make more sense if she reached out to an attorney or someone in the legal field for said advice. Seems like reaching out and providing this information to a random person, who then posts it on a forum, would do more harm to any legal action she wants to make than not. I could be wrong, but just my opinion.

 

[Warren Faidley]

First of all, nothing against Quency, he just happened to get the letter. Just wanted to make sure no wires got crossed in the discussion. My concern was how this was handled after the event. This is still unclear. It would be total speculation right now.

 

[Jeff Lieberman]

Hi everyone. I’ve been following this thread and just joined Stormtrack in order to set the record straight re: some recent posts on here. I was in the same SLT tour van as the woman who contacted Quincy. She lives in Australia, didn’t know how to proceed or navigate our system, saw Quincy’s video about our tornado encounter and reached out to him on the chance that he could help point her in the right direction and to share her concerns about what had happened that day. So there’s nothing odd or suspicious about her messages, and I share many of the concerns she’s raised.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

First of all, nothing against Quency, he just happened to get the letter. Just wanted to make sure no wires got crossed in the discussion. My concern was how this was handled after the event. This is still unclear. It would be total speculation right now.

And same goes for me as well, I have nothing against Quincy or anything.. it just seemed so odd, and random. Would just seem to me that if she wanted advice, the proper route would be to seek legal advice with an attorney. I know that she lives in Australia, but such a discussion could be had over the phone to get the advice she needs. Just my opinion that if she is considering legal options, I don't think making a post detailing her claims where it can now get back to the owners of SLT and give them an advantage and time to come up with a defense. Obviously I'm not an attorney and know nothing about such, so just an assumption.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Hi everyone. I’ve been following this thread and just joined Stormtrack in order to set the record straight re: some recent posts on here. I was in the same SLT tour van as the woman who contacted Quincy. She lives in Australia, didn’t know how to proceed or navigate our system, saw Quincy’s video about our tornado encounter and reached out to him on the chance that he could help point her in the right direction and to share her concerns about what had happened that day. So there’s nothing odd or suspicious about her messages, and I share many of the concerns she’s raised.

Which I get, but if anyone involved is considering legal options, I would refrain from posting details of the claims being made on a forum where said accusations/claims can easily get back to the owners of SLT. I just don't know if that's a smart move, that's just my advice and something to consider going forward. I know that at this point we're going off topic, but just my opinion that posting such details from someone directly involved who is now looking into legal options isn't really a smart move. The owner of SLT is very well aware of this forum, this thread and people connected to him (personal friends, and those who work or worked with him) are members here and can easily give all this information to him involving these claims.

 

[Jeff Lieberman]

Which I get, but if anyone involved is considering legal options, I would refrain from posting details of the claims being made on a forum where said accusations/claims can easily get back to the owners of SLT. I just don't know if that's a smart move, that's just my advice and something to consider going forward. I know that at this point we're going off topic, but just my opinion that posting such details from someone directly involved who is now looking into legal options isn't really a smart move. The owner of SLT is very well aware of this forum, this thread and people connected to him (personal friends, and those who work or worked with him) are members here and can easily give all this information to him involving these claims.

Understood. I just wanted everyone to know that she and her messages to Quincy are legit. And, at this point, I have no doubt that SLT is already well aware of the accusations and claims.

 

[Steve Holmes]

Something else the lady mentioned in her messages to Quincy: Anger that the rest of the tour was cancelled without a refund. Anger that the Hills did not ask if she was OK or needed medical help in the following days. Anger that nobody took her to a store to get personal items replaced.

Anger is one of the big reasons people file lawsuits. They feel they were done wrong by someone who did not care. If she is telling the truth, SLT could have its biggest battle *outside* the courtroom: Very bad PR. Yeah, it would have cost SLT to refund the money for the rest of the trip, and to offer to take the people on a new, shortened trip in a future year, free of charge. But the cost of *not* doing this may be greater. Remove one reason to sue. It's a word-of-mouth business, right? What is the word of mouth on SLT right now?

If this lady wants to really put the screws to 'em, she could contact the TV stations in SLT's home area. They love the appearance of standing up for the wronged little guy (gal). The story almost writes itself. "Jane Doe's first jolt happened when her storm-chasing van was rolled over by a tornado. Her second jolt came when the tour operator cancelled the rest of the tour -- and refused to refund money for the lost days."

It is sad. Had they known anything about crisis management, they could have mother-henned their way out of a lot of their troubles, maybe even come out of it looking *better.* As it is, This is a textbook example of how to do it wrong.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I believe other people have said the opposite, including the woman interviewed in CA? I seriously doubt any negative publicity would harm anything. The negative news cycle today is only a few minutes or hours long -- especially in the world of chasing, where you can pull a major stunt and it's over looked. Hate to use the Everest analogy again, but participant numbers sored after the string of fatal accidents.

No one has established any wrong doing as far as we know -- beyond speculation on ST. If there was some type of action, these individuals would not be posting here. They would have been contacted a long time ago as plaintiffs or witnesses, as names of involved parties would have been easily obtained by a subpoena.