Storm Reporting Problems and Proposals

[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

 

[John Wetter]

FYI, this is a scheduled presentation at the Minnesota Skywarn Workshop on April 10th! Come up and see it everyone! www.mnskywarnworkshop.org

It also was talked about at NSWW.

 

[Rob Herman]

I've been to many spotter training sessions over the years. Attendance by emergency personnel appeared to be lacking. I say appeared because I'm not familiar with all the emergency personnel in my area.

Now they have the only closed training session, I know of, in the KTOP warning area.

Emergency personnel are provided the equipment and may have the dedication to do storm spotting, but if their heart isn't in it they might just end up being a stationary target.

 

[Randy Denzer]

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."

Rob,
I work through the NFPA so it is a certification issue......If it gets NFPA approval then they have no choice.

I love it when I hear the word never.... I have guys in the station that sit around and are negative all the time and I then have other guys who actually create solutions and work to make things better.. It's hard to keep the solution guys around because they go places!

 

[rdale]

If it gets NFPA approval then they have no choice.

You know more about NFPA than I do, so I'll take your word that approval should be coming. Any ideas on the timeframe?

I have guys in the station that sit around and are negative all the time

"negative" and "realistic" are two VERY different terms. Tyler mentions that his group is proposing a national online test / spotter ID. That certainly has a chance of happening with Skywarn, and would be a great idea. But the complete reorganization of Skywarn you're talking about? No. It's a volunteer organization, so your odds of successfully going in to every program and telling them "this is the way you will do Skywarn" makes the plan a non-starter. Is it a "positive idea"? Certainly. I'd love it if every Skywarn report cames from a fully training, experienced spotter. I'm not being "negative" by saying you can't tell Otsego County Skywarn how they are going to accept reports, I'm being realistic.

Telling every fire and police agency that they WILL train the FF's / officers in severe weather? Again - you know more about national certifications than me so I believe you if you say it will happen - but I don't see it.

 

[Bill Tabor]

Everyone brings up some good points here, and a lot of new information being presented such as Skywarn 2.0 with Randy and Tyler involved, etc. I was actually unaware this was taking place. I think it's amazing that I was thinking much of the same thing these folks and the rest of the NWS organizers are. I think the National Spotter Id was an original idea I thought in my head, but maybe Randy mentioned it at one of our Beer Fests and I forgot - . Either way, I think it's really good stuff. Keep in mind however, that my list may also include issues and solutions not currently on the Skywarn 2.0 reorganization plan. I ask that you review and consider them carefully, and if not, and you agree then add them to the reorg. As for money, true..the nation is broke, but what about that unspent stimulus money? I think there is still 400 Billion or so available. Request a grant and get the funding. As Rob mentions it will be tough because it is a network organization / fellowship and I suppose fairly informal. However I believe the training requirements, reporting requirements, etc are established from a national viewpoint even if it is loose based. I think the Fed can take a bit tighter reign / involvement here in establishing more consistency in all areas. Certainly there should be similar operational standards between WFO's and the local groups that support them. Once this push comes from the top (HQ and DC) as apparently it is then it becomes a matter of organizing and prioritizing. Sounds like they already have a good start. Keep in mind my ideas weren't just for Skywarn overall but in particular as they relate to reports by chasers and mobile spotters who historically may have difficulty accessing the system and accurately / productively reporting. There are also issues with NWS and voicemail systems...for example call the El Paso WFO office and see what you get. Dale mentions an NWS 800 number. Is that one primary number or different ones for each office? I have many of the 800 numbers that I provide through Street Atlas as an overlay and through GR3 as a placefile, but some of these are not the direct 800 number. In those cases their will be problems when chasers and mobile spotters try and make a report. I've experienced this first hand and it can be frustrating. It's also annoying when you make a report and it seems to be ignored. Some of the things I brought up address those issues. In addition as Randy / Tyler, etc mention this will also be to help improve the quality of reports between all spotters with consistent training. The certification should at least show a certain amount of basic education, but of course nothing beats real world experience. Randy, Josh, the team and probably many others have lots of ideas on how to do this and working on it. There will always be poor reports and maybe a few false. Losing system privileges and re-training as Randy mentions is a good approach I think or at least a step in the right direction.

Other thoughts... don't forget to consider the different modern streams of information and video coming in and how to utilize that for ground truth, verification, etc. Figure out the best way to manage it without overwhelming those at the WFO's trying to use it. Politics will probably have to be addressed between these large Amateur Radio nets showing them how to work with the rest of the team. Once they understand the big picture and know chasers / mobile spotters are part of it, I think they won't have a problem going along.

As for the police / firefighters training, etc...yep definitely get them some basic training and certification. I think of the Sheriff at Pampa, Tx running around trying to warn people and the good Sheriff who perished in the Greensburg tornado. That was a tragedy that happened to the guy at Greensburg. Better training may have helped...not sure. I don't know how well he was trained and obviously he was trying to help his community. Anyone stuck in that town near that time would have had a tough time escaping and being safe. Point is though as others have mentioned law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency management are a big part of the reporting / warning equation - bring them in the loop, make sure they are trained at least minimally, and show them the role of the chasers / mobile spotters so we can all work on the same page.

Hey...if we could save one extra life....my guess this could do much more...but we also have to address the public side of things. Get the false alarm rate down, polygon warnings, so fewer warned unneccesarily, better building standards, and educate the public of what to do, where to go.