TIV: Two Tornado Intercepts Already?

[Peter Wharton]

Re: TIV Intercept

I've stayed out of this until now, but it's driving me nuts...

1) In the first sentence, you make the point that "people you talk to" disapprove of taking a big risk. So, the implication is that Sean shouldn't try to drive through a tornado because some or most people disapprove. Then, in the last sentence, you imply that it's up to Sean what he should or shouldn't do. Explain how that isn't 180 degrees opposed. Bob

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. Sean is entitled to take his own measured risks, as I do, despite the opinions of other people - my first comment was meant to illustrate that despite the opinions of "normal" people, we all take risks when we chase that are acceptable to us but not them - Sean is just taking a higher level of risk than we are prepared to

2) Who are these people (in New Zealand, I assume, not that it matters) who disapprove? Most people disapprove of stormchasing anyway. So what? Does that stop any of us? Should it? Hell no! That's one of the reasons we are "family". I'm a "weirdo" because I stormchase, and so is every other one of us. It's part of the package. Want to be "normal"? I don't. Bob

Shane seems to be saying that driving into a tornado is unacceptable - I was trying to communicate, apparently not clearly, that it's up to each person's perception of relative risk what they do, not the opinions of others

3) Why say "time and resources"? What does that mean? I thought the issue was about whether it is right or wrong to try to drive into a tornado. Obfuscation. Bob

Shane keeps raising the issue of money and publicity stunts - I think, as you also say, that Sean is perfectly entitled to do what he likes

4) What's the smilie for? I know what it's supposed to mean: "I'm right because I posted a smilie" Sorry, dude, but that's arrogant. Lose the attitude. Bob

The smile isn't attitude - it was just to illustrate the ironic perspective that all chasing, not just Sean's activities, is viewed by many as crazy and unacceptable - not that it should change any of our behaviour

I think it's insane to try to drive into any tornado. I also have the utmost respect for Sean for being his own person and obviously not giving a rat's @$$ for caring what other people think. Right on. Bob

I totally agree - right on for Sean, and anybody who doesn't approve just doesn't want to assume the same level of risk for themselves

 

[Shane Adams]

What I'm trying to say is, you seem to hold Sean Casey in high regard but I've yet to hear a single reply from you on this thread about Steve Green and the Tornado Attack vehicle. I'm also waiting for you to publicly proclaim that you fully support ANY attempt to drive into a tornado, not just Sean Casey's.

Because you haven't done either, one can only make the assertion (quite founded assertion BTW) that you favor Sean Casey's endeavors regardless of risk to him or the chase community in general, but yet, won't come out and say it. Coming out and saying it would no doubt garner much more flack and static for you than I've given. We can also make the assertion that you seem to believe Sean Casey has, for whatever reason, more right to dangerous practices in and around tornadoes than Steve Green. I'm guessing this is because the TIV is associated with the DOWs, while Steve Green is not.

Finally, I'm still wondering why you've completely ignored the fact that the TIV is now actively pursuing tornadoes which is totally against its original mission statement, which (for the third time now) was very clear in expressing the TIV's intent of not driving into a tornado.

Bottom line, you seem bent on making Sean Casey look like a hero for doing something that's probably been done a few dozen times over the years, by individuals who were met not with praise, but criticism. I just want to hear you say it, instead of skating around the subject with monotanous replies filled with, quite frankly, BS.

 

[Peter Wharton]

TIV Intercept

Shane, I really don't understand your inflammatory response ("BS"?) to my remarks, and your assertions about my opinion of Sean's activities:

1) I don't favour, or not favour Sean - I just respect his freedom to pursue whatever his goals are, however they evolve over time - and I don't understand what risks this poses to the chase community in general. His risks are his own, much like supposedly dangerous activities undertaken by extreme activity participants all around the world.
2) I don't know anything about Steve Green & the Tornado Attack vehicle, so don't have any comments relative to their activity.
3) I don't know if TIV is actively pursuing driving into tornadoes in general, and I suspect neither do you for sure - they appear to be wanting to get as close as is reasonable. Based on Justin Walker's comments, it seems they're using DOW's information to manage the risks and not approach where it's too dangerous - again this is a judgement call.
4) I'm not trying to make Sean a "hero" - I merely confirmed that they did intercept a relatively weak tornado, and I reacted to a thread that was filled with innuendo about their motives and truthfulness. Given that, I'm not entirely sure that on June 12 their intercept wasn't more of an accident than planned, given the reported track of the rope-out tornado.
5) All storm chasing has risks greater than the average member of the public is prepared to take - Sean's activities are merely further along the continuum than the risks most of us are prepared to take (including myself by the way - you wouldn't find me that close to danger!) It's probably a bad idea to drive directly into tornadoes without adequate risk management, knowledge, protection - does Sean fail on this score? - I don't know. I don't know who else was criticised for this behaviour in the past, so can't comment on the relative merits of what they did.

Perhaps you should outline why you have this relentless focus on the supposed integrity of Sean's mission statement. Why the need to impugn his motives? Why is it so important if his current activities have evolved beyond the mission statement on his web site?

 

[Shane Adams]

I don't have any problem with Sean Casey or the TIV project, whatsoever. I fully believe he got inside a weak tornado. I have no objection to whatever he and the TIV crew does, so long as it doesn't impose on my personal chasing.

My issue with this from the start has been simply: Why are the TIV folks trying to get into tornadoes now, when they originally weren't? Throughout this entire thread I've repeated this question over and over and over. Does it not seem a bit interesting that the TIV crew changed their agenda? That they "upped the anty" so to speak? Driving close to tornadoes is a much different thing than trying to drive into one. I find it very curious as to why they would change their mission, and more to the point, why they would change it in a way that increases the danger factor.

As far as I read for the 2003-2004 chase years, the TIV was to get as close as possible (and be relatively safe) for IMAX format tornado footage, footage shot from closer than anyone had. I "got" that, it seemed original and (while a bit over-the-top) doable. Then Steve Green came along and one-upped them by stating quite clearly that he had every intention of driving straight into a tornado....and was met with a tidal wave of criticism, sneers, and perhaps, pity.

My entire point in this whole debacle has been (all along) "why is there an entire thread about the TIV doing the same thing Steve Green did and no one (besides myself) is asking 'what makes them different than Steve Green?'" People have confirmed this was done on June 12, while no one mentioned it was an accident. Maybe it was, but you'd think that information would be passed on with the general report.

Now, just speculating, if the TIV did intentionally penetrate a tornado on June 12, that makes them every bit as much a "menace" to the chasing community as Steve Green (who no one wastes an opportunity to slam when brought up). If the TIV has the same agenda (now) as Steve Green, then to me it's obvious they are getting a show of favortism with the lack of criticism seen on this thread, and I believe that (if this is indeed the case) that favortism is because they are associated with the DOWs.

I just think that, if all the above is fact, it's a little unfair to treat equal "violaters" differently.

That is all I have to say on this subject

 

[Peter Wharton]

TIV Intercept

OK, now I understand where you're coming from - I don't know the history of the Steve Green criticism, and it seems you're annoyed at the seemingly differential treatment of TIV - for which I don't have the reference points.

I don't know if they intentionally penetrated the tornado (perhaps Justin Walker would like to comment?), but I was told that they are trying to get as close as possible, using the DOW information to manage that distance in terms of dangerous wind speeds.

I have a recollection from conversations later on the 12th that the horseshoe-shaped track of the tornado caught everyone by surprise, including the National Geo truck, but I can't confirm that for sure.

 

[Bill Tabor]

My entire point in this whole debacle has been (all along) "why is there an entire thread about the TIV doing the same thing Steve Green did and no one (besides myself) is asking 'what makes them different than Steve Green?'" People have confirmed this was done on June 12, while no one mentioned it was an accident. Maybe it was, but you'd think that information would be passed on with the general report.

Now, just speculating, if the TIV did intentionally penetrate a tornado on June 12, that makes them every bit as much a "menace" to the chasing community as Steve Green (who no one wastes an opportunity to slam when brought up). If the TIV has the same agenda (now) as Steve Green, then to me it's obvious they are getting a show of favortism with the lack of criticism seen on this thread, and I believe that (if this is indeed the case) that favortism is because they are associated with the DOWs.

I think I understand your points better now too.

Someone mentioned yesterday that TIV paid to go along with the DOW's. So, not sure that makes them better or more legitmate than Green.

True, everyone usually slams Green for wanting to penetrate a tornado. Why the different treatment? Perhaps it is partly because the DOW's seem to bring an aire of legitimacy as you mentioned.

Why did TIV apparently change their mission goal? Well, speculation on my part, but perhaps Sean Casey was aware of the competition of Steve Green for supposedly 'being the first' and wanted to beat him to the punch? Who knows...

True - most chasers and the public would think it crazy to drive into a tornado - especially a strong one. This has been the subject of many threads and posts. I suppose this then begs the question: Does DOW (and their associated team) involvement make this whole thing more legitimate and kosher or is it still just a stunt?

I'm not sure I can answer that one right now. Seems I need more information about the true relationship between TIV and the DOW research team (assuming there is one). If this was a fullblown NSSL project that requires and plans for a manned tornado interceptor probe then maybe I could accept that as legit. On the other hand I brought up NASA and the moon shots earlier on. One of the big criticisms always given about the space program is it is not practical or cost effective to use manned missions and that most exploration should be done using remote unmanned satellites and vehicles. Would this then be any different here on Earth when dealing with weather? IMO - probably not. I can't really think of anything that couldn't be accomplished with an unmanned probe into a tornado that could be done otherwise. As seen by Tim Samaras with Turtles, and others who dropped the Armadillo (for video) any data needed could be gathered this way. DOW could still roam along and then just drop their own probes in the path to collect video, or data.

Hmm...after following this line of thought I think it is fair to assume it is just a stunt, and as Shane brings up - there really is no difference or legitimacy between TIV and Tornado Attack.

 

[Justin Walker]

My issue with this from the start has been simply: Why are the TIV folks trying to get into tornadoes now, when they originally weren't? Throughout this entire thread I've repeated this question over and over and over. Does it not seem a bit interesting that the TIV crew changed their agenda? That they "upped the anty" so to speak? Driving close to tornadoes is a much different thing than trying to drive into one. I find it very curious as to why they would change their mission, and more to the point, why they would change it in a way that increases the danger factor.

I can't personally speak for the motivations for "uping the anty", but from what I know of being around Sean during ROTATE is he wants the shot. He realizes that many people have close video of tornadoes, but what is really missing is video inside a tornado (with the few exceptions as noted in another tread). I think he started feeling more confident about his vehicle being able to withstand a weak tornado, plus the odds are not with a person in getting really close to a tornado several times in a season. So he thought if he don't get many chances at this, then why not "up the anty."

My entire point in this whole debacle has been (all along) "why is there an entire thread about the TIV doing the same thing Steve Green did and no one (besides myself) is asking 'what makes them different than Steve Green?'" People have confirmed this was done on June 12, while no one mentioned it was an accident. Maybe it was, but you'd think that information would be passed on with the general report.

Well, I'm not defending anyone or praising anyone, I have been just speaking on behalf on the facts that I know. With that said, here is my opinion. Personally, Steve Green and the Tornado Attack Vehicle are just annoying. Their not just intercepting a tornado, their attacking it. No respect for the power and brute force of a tornado. They are going to just simple speed into a tornado. What if it is violent? Then what happens to the TA-1? It becomes a flying vehicle attacked by the tornado. Same situation, but with TIV now. Violent tornado, TIV is approaching, DOW's radio TIV and say violent tornado. TIV lives on for a another day.

TIV is not masking the reason that they are out there. They are out there for the video. TA-1 is claiming all this scientific data that they will gather, instruments and rockets with cameras. Also, what I find amusing about their website is the following message. It has been like this for quite some time!! :wink:

http://www.tornadoattack.com/study.htm

I don't know if they intentionally penetrated the tornado (perhaps Justin Walker would like to comment?), but I was told that they are trying to get as close as possible, using the DOW information to manage that distance in terms of dangerous wind speeds.

Sean and the TIV crew had every intention of intercepting that tornado on the 12th. The DOW's radioed TIV and put them in the right location to intercept, once in that location, TIV has the freedom to move around position themselves in the path. The tornado was in it's roping stage and was acting very erractically. I believe it had a westerly component at the time of intercept. So it is up to TIV to visually put themselves in the path. Sean made the decision to intercept and that is what they did.

 

[Peter Wharton]

TIV Intercept

Have just visited the Tornado Attack web-site for the first time - seems to me to be a quantum leap in "lunacy" over anything that the TIV is doing.
_________
Peter

 

[Robert Dewey]

Personally, I think both ideas are rather idiotic - sorry, but that's my opinion (the driving into a tornado part - calculated or not).

Obviously it's in the eye of the beholder, and everyone is free to make there own decisiosn - I just happen to be blunt with mine

 

[Sheila_Ward]

Did we ever define what "intercept" meant? Getting close or actually driving into the vortex? Just trying to follow the thread...carry on.

 

[Peter Wharton]

TIV Intercept

I think the tenor of the thread has been that "intercept" is actually driving through a tornado (i.e. the main rotation on the ground) with intent.

 

[Bob Schafer]

The Tornado Attack page referred to is now "Under Construction". That is too funny.

 

[Rob_Davis]

The Tornado Attack page referred to is now "Under Construction". That is too funny.

HAHA! Obviously they are reading here! :lol:

 

[Joe Guerra]

I think Steve should stick to Stock Car Racing :lol:

 

[Tim Stoecklein]

I think there are a handful of people who become green with envy when someone else gets the attention, and then there is a need to put down every idea and statement in support. It's sad really...

Tim