Storm Reporting Problems and Proposals

[Bill Tabor]

Watching this week's 'The Debris Show', and reading about the tornado warning delay from last Monday's cold core event in Oklahoma along with observations / experience over the years made me realize there are issues / problems which chasers face when it comes to making severe weather reports. These problems may in turn affect public safety.

1) The chaser / spotter may not be believed. (This is likely because NWS doesn't know who the person reporting is, and what level of training they have had).
2) The NWS office may not take the report because a chaser or mobile spotter may not have a Spotter Id. (When I contacted NWS in DEN the other day about the direct reporting phone number the Warning Coordinator had a problem with me for awhile because I didn't have a Spotter Id. Though perhaps one was given some years back at a local Skywarn meeting I don't believe I have one that would be relevant to their office / location. I had to explain who I was, why I was calling from Texas, etc.)
3) Spotternetwork (often used by chasers) is not used by all NWS offices.
4) Not all NWS office direct phone numbers are available through Spotternetwork. (However, recently I provided an update, which should improve that situation)
5) Many of the Skywarn groups in the US are Ham radio based and may be ARES or RACES networks. (Problem here is, (as I understand it) often the NWS only takes reports through their network. These are often closed networks though. Only members of the local ARES or RACES net may provide reports.
6) Lack of standardization between NWS offices. I've noticed that many of the offices welcome any reports, some prefer (or perhaps require) a valid local spotter id, some use eSpotter some don't. Some make their 800 numbers somewhat available if you ask; whereas others won't give it to you unless you are part of their direct network. Some may monitor Spotternetwork reports; others apparently don't or don't weight those reports much. Some prefer phone calls. Streaming video.. - not sure?
7) Chasers may stream video providing direct ground truth to verify radar and warnings issuance criteria but often those feeds are not monitored by NWS. Perhaps sometimes they are.
8) NWSchat? How well is it utilized / integrated? How effective?
9) Media reporting integration / issues?
10) Warning Coordinator overwhelmed from too many sources to check?
11) Some say chasers are often looked down upon by local law enforcement, or viewed suspiciously compared to Spotter groups. I suppose this idea is based on the concept that chasers are out for the photography, adrenaline rush, or to make a buck on some video as opposed to Spotters who are just there and part of the community to help warn the public. Of course in truth many chasers provide warnings to the public when spotters aren't around. In this case Spotters are seen as part of the inside group, and chasers are seen as outsiders and often considered reckless troublemakers causing congestion on the roads, etc.
12) Chasers / Mobile spotters may not have a good NWS WFO phone number - quick and direct. In addition many non-direct numbers are voicemail mazes only staffed 8-3:30 with no option to report severe weather or it is the very last option stated.

Rising up above all these issues and looking down on the bigger picture a few thoughts come to mind.
1) A lot of technology and environment has changed since the advent of the original Spotter groups, and NWS procedures.
2) The NWS warning offices seem to each be in a different spectrum mix with regards to their policies, procedures, and warning infrastructure. Many still rely primarily or only on conventional Amateur radio Skywarn networks.
3) Millions are spent on radar, equipment, research, training, education in order to understand the science of storms, but I believe only a fractional part is spent on the infrastructure related to actually warning the public and the marketing / education program for the public in order to help keep them safe from the storms. (For instance...if a tornado warning is issued many / most will go outside and look rather than take shelter).
4) NWS offices likely are not fully utilizing all the new technology sources to help them make quicker / better warnings for the public.
5) It may not be clear to each office which mix of infrastructure technology provide the most effective tools for helping to warn the public.

Based on the above I propose a few ideas for improvement:
1) More coordination and standardization should be made for consistency between NWS warning offices in regards to warning decision sources, usage’s, and methodologies.
2) It might be a good idea to commission a study to determine the best way to utilize / integrate chasers, mobile spotters, streaming video, Spotternetwork, NWSchat, the media, eSpotter, etc. There is a lot of information out there but the key is finding the best, most accurate information and in the quickest, most convenient form.
3) Find ways to help utilize chasers in a positive way and improve their image amongst the local public, law enforcement and Skywarn nets.
4) Create National Spotter Id’s for submitting reports. (I don't believe these exist - no?) A National Spotter Id would provide a mechanism for chasers and mobile spotters to validate themselves as a worthy source of information for reporting when out of their local area. This would also ensure that they have met a certain standard in regards to training in order to receive the Id. Actually Spotternetwork and NSR (National Storms Research & Training Institute) already have an online certification program. This program could receive NOAA / NWS approval (if it hasn't already) and be one avenue for receiving the National Spotter Id. This Id would be registered at all NWS WFO's enabling chasers / mobile spotters to make reports utilizing direct lines, Spotternetwork, or through the local Amateur Radio network. Note this is not the same as a National Chaser Id or License. This is only optional for reporting purposes.
5) I believe more attention / money should be spent on the back end of the severe weather warning infrastructure to integrate all the sources (mentioned above) and to help educate the public.
6) Provide a complete direct list of NWS WFO numbers to valid Spotters with a National Spotter Id.
7) Eliminate NWS WFO voice mail maze. Make sure if there is voicemail that severe reports are the first option stated.

In closing, let me say this is not a comprehensive list. I don’t have perfect knowledge of all this stuff, and it is a big topic / issue. I probably left out some things or misrepresented the extent of an issue. For instance, I know there is standardization at NWS offices, but I believe it is incomplete, or at least inconsistent. None of this is meant as condemnation against any party or group, but friendly ideas for improvement and should only be taken as such.

Let me know if these issues, problems and solutions / proposals are accurate and how effective you think they will be. Generally I just see it as a new age with many new options and we just need to refine the system for the most effectiveness.

In order to move forward will likely require formal proposal / agreement between NOAA/NWS and alignment with the Spotternetwork Association, National Storms Research and Training Institute and Skywarn groups.

 

[rdale]

This comes up every year or so... I'll hit the downside, not that I disagree with your plans.

1) In the end, offices are run by their respective MICs. You'll need to get this okayed at the HQ level, which is not easy since they are very remote from the day-to-day stuff.
2) I think that's what SpotterNet already does. It's just not being accepted at local offices, refer to answer 1
3) Sounds good in theory
4) It'll never work. We still have some NWS offices teaching people that they don't want funnel reports. It also takes a LOT of money to develop
5) Money doesn't exist.
6) Again, it's up to a local office how they want their local number given out.
7) Taken care of with the national 800# that is now in use at all offices.

 

[Randy Denzer]

Chasers and Spotters,
There is a big Re-Org going on for Skywarn. It is going to be very positive and will address a bunch of the issues being talked about (including training, certification and databasing). I am not at liberty to discuss the details but can tell you I feel it is heading in the right direction.
I am team leader for the Safety group and on the procedures group and I can tell you that a bunch of WCM's and a couple folks from the private sector are working hard to make this a really good thing. Please be patient and know there are folks watching and listening!

Randy Denzer
National Storm Research and Training Institute
Austin, Texas

 

[rdale]

There is a big Re-Org going on for Skywarn.

Just for clarification, Skywarn isn't a "group" - it's just the designation for a NWS program of training and receiving spotter information. There is no "SKYWARN HQ" that sends out the training for everyone to use, as it is all developed at the local office (which results in the "funnels are not a concern" training from one )

There's no national "Skywarn President" or anything like that which would be changing the way every Skywarn group operates.

 

[Randy Denzer]

Just for clarification, Skywarn isn't a "group" - it's just the designation for a NWS program of training and receiving spotter information. There is no "SKYWARN HQ" that sends out the training for everyone to use, as it is all developed at the local office (which results in the "funnels are not a concern" training from one )

There's no national "Skywarn President" or anything like that which would be changing the way every Skywarn group operates.

OK, Thanks for the info.. But it is a group and change is coming...

 

[Jason Foster]

This is an interesting thread. There was some threads over at skywarnonline.com about the 'future' of Skywarn. I pointed out there the lack of standards and practices from a national point of view. I am certainly interested in seeking out information (Randy...anything you are 'allowed' to release would be great). I had tried to get a hold of folks at NWS national offices here in Silver Spring. Many didn't have much knowledge of the program. I've tried also to grab certain folks at local DC/AMS meetings because we do get a number of staff from the NWS national office at those meetings, but again most didn't know much of anything.

It would be great to see some national standards, more qualified reporters, and a national oversight (of some sort) by NWS. The ham radio factor for one is (IMO) one of the problems because they do tend to take over or dominate local WFO skywarn programs which discourages non-hams from participating. As the thread title eludes too....there are problems with reporting reports and efficiently getting that information out to the public. There are few (if any) that don't understand that spotter/chaser responsibility is to radio in any life/property threatening conditions.

 

[David Mikulec]

Yes. National, up to date standards are sorely needed and long overdue. Locally, the only organized Skywarn spotters are with the hams and if you're not a ham you're out of luck. I couldn't even get the head of the local EMS interested. They have it all sewn up.

 

[Adam Lucio]

Here in IL [or at least the Chicago NWS] they don't issue spotter IDs. I think a uniform system needs to be implemented across the nation before complete order and understanding could be achieved. I don't know what NWSs issue IDs and which don't or whether the "spotter ID" is something that requires additional certification or not.

I would think that if this ID is to be viewed as such a critical piece of info [for some offices] then they should all go ahead and issue them.

 

[rdale]

OK, Thanks for the info.. But it is a group and change is coming...

What I'm saying is that there is no "national Skywarn" that can come in and tell Dallas RACES or Lansing ARPSC how they have to run their Skywarn nets.

Think of the new Tea Party Lots of people on the same sheet of paper, but it doesn't mean that there is a Tea Party President who tells everyone in the group what to do.

 

[Shane Adams]

Lots of people on the same sheet of paper, but it doesn't mean that there is a Tea Party President who tells everyone in the group what to do.

And there's the problem.

 

[Jay McCoy]

What I'm saying is that there is no "national Skywarn" that can come in and tell Dallas RACES or Lansing ARPSC how they have to run their Skywarn nets.

Think of the new Tea Party Lots of people on the same sheet of paper, but it doesn't mean that there is a Tea Party President who tells everyone in the group what to do.

But hopefully if national standards are set then anybody not meeting those requirements would not get a skywarn accredidation and therefore not be part of the official NWS program and not allowed to participate in direct NWS spotting via radio.

I have seen it tons of times the difference in quality of spotters and skywarn nets across the plains. Some are very professional and you can believe what they report and others are nothing more than a couple of yocal wannabes with no training that wouldnt know a wall cloud from a shelf cloud if it were labeled for them. Some groups seem to think if you have a Ham license your automatically a trained spotter. We need uniform standards and training requirements so the NWS knows ther reports they get are as accurate as possible.

Its the same with chasers. We know when certain guys post a report its going to be accurate and others that call anything that stirs up a cloud of dust a tornado. It comes down to knowledge and experience.

 

[Jesse Risley]

As far as I can tell, the lack of standardization coupled with varying protocalls, depending on the WFO, represents the root of the problem with storm reporting problems. However, certainly staffing levels at a given time can play a role in this as well.

I agree that some sort of a national spotter database would be outstanding, but it doesn't solve the problem of ensuring that all reports received are of the highest caliber, and therefore that some skepticism will sometimes remain on the human (NWS) end of things. Such a process would also be cumbersome, along with costing dollars and cents, but the points made by the OP are indeed salient.

If you have a NWS office that issues some sort of a Spotter ID, I would suggest at least putting the office and ID Number in the "Note" section of your contact information under the NWS and Emergency Management section of Spotter Network.

 

[David Mikulec]

Here in IL [or at least the Chicago NWS] they don't issue spotter IDs...I would think that if this ID is to be viewed as such a critical piece of info [for some offices] then they should all go ahead and issue them.

They don't issue them here either. They just send out a certificate after you've gone through the class.

 

[rdale]

But hopefully if national standards are set then anybody not meeting those requirements would not get a skywarn accredidation and therefore not be part of the official NWS program and not allowed to participate in direct NWS spotting via radio.

Remember that Skywarn is 100% volunteer. Even if we had a national criteria for training - how do you "enforce" it? A test? Won't work, as you can't simulate 3D rotation with a slideshow. A movie would be tough too. Even if they do recognize 1" hail vs 3" hail, what does that tell you about the ability to report wall cloud vs shelf cloud?

What if I miss the training in my county - am I out for a year? Do I have to travel 60 miles and hit the next county's? Is every county's NCS going to have a database with every spotter in the country to verify? We have about 10-20 people that run the nets in just my county, and maybe 30-60 checkins. That is a lot of cross-checking.

Again - all of this sounds good. But there's no way to implement most of these ideas, and "forcing" it won't help. 95% of public safety (fire/police/etc) never sat in a minute of Skywarn training, yet their reports are always given heavy weight. So now we're going to cut off Skywarn reports from those who didn't make it to the local Skywarn testing session? Doesn't seem like a good plan...

 

[Randy Denzer]

There is a movement at the national level (DC) to standardize training and create a certification for spotters. This has culminated to a Re-Org group. There are folks who are leading the program (from DC and across the US) and Comet got the grant to create the program with the understanding that others would have input. The reason I am involved has more to do with bring a public safety mindset and teaching methodology to the group (hence training CERTIFICATIONS, Continuing Education and Quality Control) .
Me and Josh Jans (NSR) tried to hand them the spotternetwork training program we built but they wanted to build a "Skywarn" specific program. The training will be the basics and include safety, procedures and a wide spectrum of weather modules. The local WCM will have the ability to add to the program for their perspective region.
Tyler, Josh and myself are going to work the basic training (when completed) into the spotternetwork training program so that spotternetwork spotters will be nationally certified skywarn spotters. The spotternetwork program will be much more detailed and have more content than the Skywarn program due to cost limitations for the NWS. Depending on the Skywarn content there may be a small CE class required for current spotternetwok spotters to get the additional info required by the NWS course.
Tyler Allison and others are also trying to get a national database of spotters which would only make sense to come with a NATIONAL skywarn number for a "Certified" spotter (this means someone will have to manage it, hence a director or President or king).
Of course this is all things we are working on and I am hoping to see a bunch of it come to reality in time.
I think it;s long overdue to have a National Skywarn program and not just an ad hoc regional programs. I am surprised attorneys have not forced this issue at this point!

More to come. Please be professional when your spotting! it's more important now than ever before to give detailed, accurate and professional reports, whether to the NWS or through Spotternetwork.

 

[rdale]

Again - great ideas, but look at SN.

http://www.spotternetwork.org/quality.php

A fully trained and certified spotter sent in three false reports. Prior to that we had someone report 3/4" based on what he determined from radar, had a report that a "really strong storm is coming in" and "heavy winds are blowing."

When you're working with volunteers, even a great training / exam program like SN can't weed out everything bad.

 

[Randy Denzer]

Again - great ideas, but look at SN.

http://www.spotternetwork.org/quality.php

A fully trained and certified spotter sent in three false reports. Prior to that we had someone report 3/4" based on what he determined from radar, had a report that a "really strong storm is coming in" and "heavy winds are blowing."

When you're working with volunteers, even a great training / exam program like SN can't weed out everything bad.

Each of the reports you are talking about had repercussions to the spotters who made the reports. They will have to go through retraining and not be able to report again for a while. Is there any other system of spotters that has that type of QC?

You know this, Your on the SN board!

 

[rdale]

Each of the reports you are talking about had repercussions to the spotters who made the reports.!

Again - I ask not to read into my comments. I'm not saying SN is bad. I'm saying that a training program, even an excellent one, won't take Joe Public and make him Joe Expert. It won't filter out the people that want to make malicious reports.

The "new Skywarn" you talk about leaves fire and police spotters out of the mix. So a guy who went to Skywarn training for 18 years and misses out on the "official Skywarn exam" can't make reports, but the cop who started his job last year and never looked at the sky in his life --- can make reports.

There are a lot of details and intricacies to the Skywarn program that aren't always noticed at first glance. Recall that many people think there is a "national Skywarn database" or something similar that dictates to the locals.

 

[Adam Lucio]

Remember that Skywarn is 100% volunteer. Even if we had a national criteria for training - how do you "enforce" it? A test? Won't work, as you can't simulate 3D rotation with a slideshow. A movie would be tough too. Even if they do recognize 1" hail vs 3" hail, what does that tell you about the ability to report wall cloud vs shelf cloud?

What if I miss the training in my county - am I out for a year? Do I have to travel 60 miles and hit the next county's? Is every county's NCS going to have a database with every spotter in the country to verify? We have about 10-20 people that run the nets in just my county, and maybe 30-60 checkins. That is a lot of cross-checking.

Again - all of this sounds good. But there's no way to implement most of these ideas, and "forcing" it won't help. 95% of public safety (fire/police/etc) never sat in a minute of Skywarn training, yet their reports are always given heavy weight. So now we're going to cut off Skywarn reports from those who didn't make it to the local Skywarn testing session? Doesn't seem like a good plan...

It would be difficult to do all the thing you've mentioned. I dont think its a bad thing though, as only those who are really serious about it will go through the tougher requirements and be more committed. I think its too easy these days and that attracts allot of people who may have nothing more than a general interest and the need to feel more important than they actually are.

We don't need 100s of spotters in a given area, most of them are the ones that don't really know what is going on. I think a dozen people who take it more seriously and are willing to go through stricter requirements would be a good thing.

 

[rdale]

We don't need 100s of spotters in a given area

I agree. But that's never been a problem in Michigan, Indiana or Ohio Skywarn programs I've been associated with. That's where the "tornado alley" / "rest of the country" disconnect comes into play. Having a dozen "trained" spotters covering even one county won't be enough, since that assumes they'd be available and in position for every event.

I'd rather have 100 spotters with 90 untrained ones telling me "tornado is moving towards Lansing" -- than 2 trained spotters who are on the other side of the city at the time.

 

[Randy Denzer]

Again - I ask not to read into my comments. I'm not saying SN is bad. I'm saying that a training program, even an excellent one, won't take Joe Public and make him Joe Expert. It won't filter out the people that want to make malicious reports.

The "new Skywarn" you talk about leaves fire and police spotters out of the mix. So a guy who went to Skywarn training for 18 years and misses out on the "official Skywarn exam" can't make reports, but the cop who started his job last year and never looked at the sky in his life --- can make reports.

There are a lot of details and intricacies to the Skywarn program that aren't always noticed at first glance. Recall that many people think there is a "national Skywarn database" or something similar that dictates to the locals.

Here is kinda what is being talked about:
The new Program will not leave police and fire out of the mix, nor the guy who took 18 years of classes. Those reports will still be taken (I sure hope so!). There will be an implementation stage. Those who take the online class and pass a basic exam will receive a certificate (hence certification) and hopefully a national NWS Skywarn number. A report from one of these grads could create a "Certified"report. A report from a non certified spotter would be taken as a "report". At some point, the NWS could require certified reports only but it would be years and years.
I am in a position to work this program into the first response community at a national level. It would take a little work but I feel the program could be used at the entry level with fire and police cadets and as a CE class for existing police and Firefigthers.
There has been a ton of discussion and work on this for about 4 years from NSR. This is just a different avenue than what we originally started on.

Also, in the end there should be an oversight committee and a committee head at the national level. I would be shocked to see all this work done and then there not be. I do know DC is heavily involved. Send me an PM and I will let you know who all is heading this up...

I am a results drivin problem solver (and a Union official)... I learned to just create solutions..... The rest is in the attitude!

 

[rdale]

I am in a position to work this program into the first response community at a national level. It would take a little work but I feel the program could be used at the entry level with fire and police cadets and as a CE class for existing police and Firefigthers.

I guess I'll let you prove me wrong but I don't see the slightest chance in he-double-hockey sticks that my local fire chief or county sheriff will be adding weather spotting to their academy requirements.

ESPECIALLY if it comes as a "Washington DC suggestion."

 

[Tyler Allison]

This is an 80 / 20 rule Rob. We will _never_ solve for 100% of people. But Randy and I refuse to not try

 

[rdale]

I'm all for trying...

DHS wants local police and fire departments to include a 3-day (24 hour) ACAMS course for all new first responders, and "suggests" that those currently employed are forced to take it during their annual refreshers. All so that these first responders can look at critical infrastructure information -- the same info that they already have access to via their department. But to look at the data on a government server requires this 3-day class.

Guess what sort of reaction that request is getting from the locals

 

[Tyler Allison]

I doubt anything put out as part of this re-do of SKYWARN is going to be more complicated than what you see at the SN. An hour..maybe two of online training (or in class like they already do at local level) and a basic test. There's enough folks on the redo committee that grouse about 60 minutes worth of training that getting 120 minutes will be like pulling teeth. Just think...DHS thinks 24 hours of training is required for basic level understanding but the meteorlogical community figures 60 minutes is enough. I personally think it's a darn shame and until that attitude changes we'll have crappy reports clogging the system...I just spent 40 hours of training on one of my other hobbies and I even paid for the privilege (bee keeping).

I suspect for most people they won't even notice a change other than they get updated material and a national ID number.

It's a baby step, but it's been a long time coming. I'll take it.

-Tyler