James Wilson
EF5
I can tell you that the rotation was on us and we saw nothing as far as structure or tornado features. Winds south then north that was about all we could see. Very HP
-
After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.
I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.
For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.
From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.
Sincerely, Jeff D.
Silver Lining Tours vans rolled in Kansas
- Thread starter Steve Miller
- Start date
- Status
Colman Mulkern
Enthusiast
I live in Lawrence, saw the tornado and yesterday I surveyed part of the damage path from the start of the tornado to US 59. I found the first signs of the tornado on E 450 Rd about a mile southwest of where the van was impacted. Several structures were hit in the vicinity of the van. From that point on there was a clear damage path all the way to US 59. It is possible that there was a satellite, although the data I collected does not seem to indicate that. The path appeared to be complex, with several north-south wobbles early on in the life of the tornado. I will link my tweet for the survey I took. I have no opinion on SLT or the incident, just putting some facts out there.
Dan Robinson
EF5
I can't help but sense some out-of-place coddling of chase tour guests here. I'm not advocating taking unnecessary risks or being reckless with people in your care. But let's not act like a tour group is a bus full of nuns or school kids. These are people who are out there for the same reasons you and I are. I've met many of them. Many of them have "graduated" to being longtime independent chasers. Some are even active on ST. They want to see a tornado, to have the same experiences you and I like to have. That is what they signed up for and what they paid large amounts of money to do. The waivers tell them there is a remote chance that incidents just like this could happen.
Sure, you can see a tornado from 10 miles away and be 100% free from any risk of getting hit. But that style of chasing is unacceptable for me personally. I am not happy with that and will never be. It's like driving cross country to NYC to see the Statue of Liberty and end up with a hazy, low contrast view of it from across the bay and in between buildings. To me, that is simply lame. What's the point? I'm not being critical of those who ARE happy with that, just I'm always perplexed why some are acting like wanting to be close enough for good contrast, to see detailed motion, to hear the sound is so unreasonable.
Is there a risk? Yes. I accept the risk. Do I want to get hit? No, and I take measures to ensure that does not happen to the best of my ability. But to chase like I do means that the risk is never going to be zero. Many of you are correct to say that the risk can only be zero if you stay FAR away to the point that you are in the nosebleed seats all the time. If that makes you happy, go for it. Not me! I'd venture to say that tour guests who have spent $6,000 to fly around the world to chase probably aren't so happy with that idea either.
You want zero risk? Stay 10 miles away and be happy with your zero-contrast shots that you have to torture in Photoshop to even prove you saw it. You want to see something better? Accept a less-than-zero risk.
Sure, you can see a tornado from 10 miles away and be 100% free from any risk of getting hit. But that style of chasing is unacceptable for me personally. I am not happy with that and will never be. It's like driving cross country to NYC to see the Statue of Liberty and end up with a hazy, low contrast view of it from across the bay and in between buildings. To me, that is simply lame. What's the point? I'm not being critical of those who ARE happy with that, just I'm always perplexed why some are acting like wanting to be close enough for good contrast, to see detailed motion, to hear the sound is so unreasonable.
Is there a risk? Yes. I accept the risk. Do I want to get hit? No, and I take measures to ensure that does not happen to the best of my ability. But to chase like I do means that the risk is never going to be zero. Many of you are correct to say that the risk can only be zero if you stay FAR away to the point that you are in the nosebleed seats all the time. If that makes you happy, go for it. Not me! I'd venture to say that tour guests who have spent $6,000 to fly around the world to chase probably aren't so happy with that idea either.
You want zero risk? Stay 10 miles away and be happy with your zero-contrast shots that you have to torture in Photoshop to even prove you saw it. You want to see something better? Accept a less-than-zero risk.
Last edited:
Mike Thornton
EF1
I believe that the Weather Channel vehicle that was rolled on May 31st, 2013 was impacted by a satellite tornado. I could be wrong though.
Quincy Vagell
EF4
Below are a few tweets I just posted. I spotted four vans at 6:01 p.m. that were between 0.5 and 1 blocks north of the incident, within five minutes of the tornado damage.
I am assuming it is their vans and if so, they were in an even more dangerous spot and were driving south, directly into the tornado a few minutes later.
Again, I am assuming it is their vans... it is possible that they belong to the church, but I’m highly skeptical of that.
I am assuming it is their vans and if so, they were in an even more dangerous spot and were driving south, directly into the tornado a few minutes later.
Again, I am assuming it is their vans... it is possible that they belong to the church, but I’m highly skeptical of that.
JamesCaruso
Staff member
Dan, I can see it both ways. What you say is true about the non-zero risk, but there is a large continuum of chasing practices between being 10 miles away and being that close. It used to be that even being in "the bear's cage" of any supercell was frowned upon as a chasing practice.
I think you hit on something regarding many of the tourists being out there for the same reasons we are, and being willing to take risks, and not deserving to be coddled. But remember there are a spectrum of participants; others of them, especially the newer ones, might tend to be much more conservative in the risks they want to take, or think they are taking. They hear about the risks, sign the waivers, but don't *really* expect anything bad to happen. You might say that, if this is the case, they are unrealistic and not going into it with their eyes wide open. But there are warnings and disclaimers on everything these days, even amusement park rides, and most of us sign waivers all the time without a second thought, not really expecting to be harmed. We go on airplanes knowing they could crash (God forbid), but we would still be disappointed in the pilot that doesn't get us safely to our destination.
I tried to think back to the mindset of a tourist, which I was when I started. I took one of the original tours with Marty Feely in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Back then, Marty's Whirlwind Tours and Charles Edwards's Cloud 9 Tours were two of a very small number of tour companies; I don't even think SL had started back then. Anyway, I remember before my first trip, knowing there was some risk, but trusting implicitly that Marty knew what he was doing after 13 years and wouldn't put us in any danger. There was a certain reliance upon his expertise. Like going on any adventure trip, it should be inherently safer than doing it yourself. But of course there was knowledge that it wasn't a senior citizen trip to see a washed-up performer in Nashville either.
I think you hit on something regarding many of the tourists being out there for the same reasons we are, and being willing to take risks, and not deserving to be coddled. But remember there are a spectrum of participants; others of them, especially the newer ones, might tend to be much more conservative in the risks they want to take, or think they are taking. They hear about the risks, sign the waivers, but don't *really* expect anything bad to happen. You might say that, if this is the case, they are unrealistic and not going into it with their eyes wide open. But there are warnings and disclaimers on everything these days, even amusement park rides, and most of us sign waivers all the time without a second thought, not really expecting to be harmed. We go on airplanes knowing they could crash (God forbid), but we would still be disappointed in the pilot that doesn't get us safely to our destination.
I tried to think back to the mindset of a tourist, which I was when I started. I took one of the original tours with Marty Feely in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Back then, Marty's Whirlwind Tours and Charles Edwards's Cloud 9 Tours were two of a very small number of tour companies; I don't even think SL had started back then. Anyway, I remember before my first trip, knowing there was some risk, but trusting implicitly that Marty knew what he was doing after 13 years and wouldn't put us in any danger. There was a certain reliance upon his expertise. Like going on any adventure trip, it should be inherently safer than doing it yourself. But of course there was knowledge that it wasn't a senior citizen trip to see a washed-up performer in Nashville either.
Dean Baron
Supporter
I have to disagree with your tone. I don't think you need to stay 10 miles away in order to be safe and have a very, very small chance of something going wrong. I'd say anything more than 3 miles away is pretty damn safe, and would still offer a pretty good view on most storms. Once you get within a mile or two, things can go bad quickly, especially on a monster HP storm that offers little view of a large and violent tornado anyway. Not only do you still not have much to see at 1-2 miles, but you can't see the signs you are starting to be put in danger. I would think a rule of thumb for tour groups would be to stay in that 3-5 mile range where you are close enough to see but far enough away to be safe. Just my opinion. I don't own a tour company so it's not my problem to figure out.
Sean Ramsey
EF4
I can't say what's safe or what's not for a tour group, or anybody else for that matter. But, it makes you wonder if complacency starts creeping in after a certain amount of time, even for the most seasoned veterans, or if risk tolerance naturally increases and you put yourself in places you wouldn't have dreamed of 5-10 years ago because of the success of each year before. I know this happens for me and I don't even realize it until after the fact. My guess is corrections will be made and a special emphasis on safety will take place going forward.
Tony Laubach
EF5
Not sure I ever stated that they should be 10 miles away... and again, if that's not for you, go for it. But you are not responsible for the safety of dozen of people, so have at it. I'd like to think that in their situation, you'd consider taking a step or two back from your own aggressiveness out of consideration of that. Sure, some folks were probably thrilled from that experience, but I'd be willing to bet some good money that a few of them were less than happy to get chucked around like that. We obviously have not heard from their clients in regards to whether they felt they got their money's worth, so it may be a lofty assumption to say that a couple of those folks may not have enjoyed their little vacation all that much.
This is also being argued given the situation they were in. An HP storm, limited visibility, approaching a population center. This was not a highly visible, slow moving supercell in the middle of nowhere within a gridded road network.
Situational awareness... you call it coddling, I call it cautious. And again, throw in the situation at hand. No one has said be 10 miles away, and certainly it wasn't me. But there is a HUGE difference in being up close to a classic, highly visible, slow moving tornado verses blinding driving into an HP storm. That two miles means very different measures of safety in each of those situations. I don't care what your preference is for chasing on your own, but clearly that preference needs to change in a tour situation verses what you do solo.
Dan Robinson
EF5
I put together this map attempting to visualize the possible series of events depicted on the radar grabs that @Jeff Snyder posted above. The NWS survey track is partially faded out:
Quincy, from what I can tell from your video, the main base/meso wasn't completely rain wrapped just prior to the incident? In other words, the expectation was for that area to the northwest to be the area of concern. Was there ANY visual indication of something coming from the southwest?
Quincy, from what I can tell from your video, the main base/meso wasn't completely rain wrapped just prior to the incident? In other words, the expectation was for that area to the northwest to be the area of concern. Was there ANY visual indication of something coming from the southwest?
Last edited:
Dan Robinson
EF5
Tony, my main point was that the tour guests pay for and expect the guides to deliver what they came to see, and that sense of obligation might put them into "greater than zero" risk situations that probably cross the threshold of sensibilities of the most conservative chasers. The expectation that chasing be a zero-risk affair - even for tours - seems unreasonable to me. I hate to bring up the cliche argument about whitewater rafting, mountain climbing and skiing, but it's valid.
Tours in general I'd expect have to try to find the balance in getting their guests what they paid for and keeping out of the most obvious dangers. That being said, the longer-running tours have managed to do this without major incident for quite a long time, and I don't believe any of them forfeit playing close when they are able to do so.
I would argue that playing the notch in an HP isn't necessarily the grave risk it's made out to be in every case. Higher than staying out ahead of the storm, sure. With a violent tornado in progress, or a chaser with limited experience, no, I wouldn't do it. But to my knowledge this storm had not produced anything significant up to this point.
Also, on another note, this isn't the first tour van tornado impact. On May 10, 2010, a Cloud 9 van guided by none other than Jim Leonard was hit by a tornado subvortex in Wakita, Oklahoma, breaking the windows in the van and giving some guests minor cuts and scratches.
Tours in general I'd expect have to try to find the balance in getting their guests what they paid for and keeping out of the most obvious dangers. That being said, the longer-running tours have managed to do this without major incident for quite a long time, and I don't believe any of them forfeit playing close when they are able to do so.
I would argue that playing the notch in an HP isn't necessarily the grave risk it's made out to be in every case. Higher than staying out ahead of the storm, sure. With a violent tornado in progress, or a chaser with limited experience, no, I wouldn't do it. But to my knowledge this storm had not produced anything significant up to this point.
Also, on another note, this isn't the first tour van tornado impact. On May 10, 2010, a Cloud 9 van guided by none other than Jim Leonard was hit by a tornado subvortex in Wakita, Oklahoma, breaking the windows in the van and giving some guests minor cuts and scratches.
Last edited:
And in 1998 a Cloud9 van (with me as a passenger) was hit by a nascent spinup (luckily with minimal damage except a little sandblasting of the van). Didn't stop me from chasing.
Tony Laubach
EF5
I absolutely get your point... they paid and have certain expectations. But you're glossing over my point entirely which is situational awareness. I obviously go skiing, but do you go winding through the trees when the winds are creating whiteout conditions or go for something more open? Okay, so yeah, maybe you do. Now, lets pretend for a moment you're a ski instructor, and you're taking a group of varied-experience individuals up there to ski. Sunny, nice day, maybe you do some trees, get into the deeper powder, etc. Are you going to take them through the trees when the visibility is limited? The winds are howling? The snow conditions aren't great. I mean, yes, they absolutely paid and have expectations, so does that trump situational awareness.
Do you mountain climb the same on a sunny day verses a stormy one? I hate to use your cliches, but don't you adjust your measures of safety based on the conditions at hand, or do you just have one set method and situational circumstances be damned? At what point do you say, hey, this ain't going to work and sorry folks, we can't blindly drive you into what we can't see.
Of course there is risk (I said that in my post). Never did I say ANYTHING about zero risk. You're completely glossing over my point, and not only that, are providing "cliche" activities to which I would HOPE one would take the situation into account before blinding rafting in a river, climbing a mountain, or skiing down mountain.
I recall Cloud 9's venture nine years ago. It's completely irrelevant to this situation. I do not recall anyone saying this is the first time a tour group has been impacted. I also recall a few years ago some farming equipment getting flipped into a tour van. So I believe this would be incident #3 (second being directly impacted). But all my references are specific to this incident.
Dan Robinson
EF5
Sure, I understand what you're saying. If they drove blindly in there with an ongoing EF4 and maxed-out couplet, they would deserve every bit of criticism coming. And they may still depending on what evidence emerges. But based on what I've seen so far, their position didn't seem entirely unreasonable for someone of their experience level. They were southeast of a northeast-moving meso that hadn't even produced yet, and from Quincy's video, it appeared that there was *some* visibility. The main point of contention is that some wouldn't put a tour group in the notch of an HP under any circumstance, which I see as the main point of disagreement.
And BTW I didn't mean to look as if I was singling you out Tony, this thread has gone viral with similar opinions expressed elsewhere and I felt the need to address the overall counter argument.
And BTW I didn't mean to look as if I was singling you out Tony, this thread has gone viral with similar opinions expressed elsewhere and I felt the need to address the overall counter argument.
Last edited:
Shane Adams
You don't have to be 10 miles away to be safe. You can be a mile away and be safe, and also get the contrast and motion you mentioned. Your statement about "ten miles away to be safe" is as blanket as the "chasing is dangerous" statement. Goddamn I wish someone would do a show and talk about this. There's sure as hell a lot of strong opinions out there being displayed.
- Status
Similar threads
