What is the purpose of having a livecam?

[Matthew Crowther]

It may help accelerate legislation designed to curb what is quickly becoming a serious problem --chaser hordes and reckless behavior.

..Chris..

Agree with everything you said until this last comment- you WANT legislation to "curb" reckless behavior? How would such a law be enforced? (and this is coming from a lifelong democrat). I think that enforcement of the existing statutes against speeding, blocking traffic should be the way to go, new laws are not necessary in this case.

 

[Steve Miller]

I would like to see Chris start a new thread here about this legislation he speaks of. I've heard a lot of rumors coming out of a specific "camp" of which Chris' name is always brought up regarding his involvement in some potential legislation. This is strictly hearsay so some cards on the table on this would be nice.
What's the scoop, Chris?

 

[John Diel]

I use the Radar information garned by GRLevel3 in spotting at night quite extensively. I also look at at least two sites for just this type thing. I'm also perfectly aware that the information isn't realiable to keep me out of trouble. I rely on the good old Mark II eyeball calibration for that.

Radar images give me a good idea of where I need to be and a look at what's going on way above my head, but for the actualy get in and take a look? Nope, the Radar doesn't do me a bit of good except blind me with the screen glare.

It's a nice to have tool, but like any tool, it's prone to failure at some point. Rain Wrapped Tornado chasing at night? I will steer clear as much as I can. Core Punching? Not unless I worked myself into a corner by a dumb mistake. Live streaming? Not my cup of tea at this point. I looked at it and actually had a system worked up a couple of years ago. Never did really do anything with it though. I had been working with Internet Based Surveillance Camera monitoring for a couple of years prior to that.

I'm happy to hear they guys are alright. I think maybe a lesson was learned here. At least by a couple of Storm Chasers it was.

 

[Gene Moore]

There are harsh realities about chasing that show dramatic changes have slowly taken place in the last few years. One particular chase day in May "13 separate chase vehicles got physically into tornadic circulations."

In the realm of vehicle mishaps all collisions are called accidents, but are they? Likewise do you define a large number of people getting as close as possible to tornadoes as a reasonable course of action where no "accidents" are expected? Now add the fact that it's either dark or deep into the rain. At some point accident becomes reckless behavior and we as a group need to admit this fact. Is a spotter saving lives by finding a tornado deep in the rain, or just risking their own? Why not assume the tornado is "in there" and sound the sirens, a much better option that the numerous spotter deaths we've seen in the last couple years.

Forget radar, if you cannot trust your eyes you should not be there!

Gene Moore

 

[rdale]

Only reason I must have a livecam (per phone calls) is for my dad to complain that I roll stopsigns and my daughter to note that I'm riding the cars in front of me too close

 

[David Douglas]

Gene - I agree completely with your comments.

Not to mention that I've seen delays up to 15 minutes with Threatnet, with the standard delay being 5-10 minutes.

I think, unfortunately, that we have a whole new breed of chasers who think that you can buy a Barron system, look at the Day1, and go chasing. The fact is these individuals are not really chasers, they are just mobile storm observers. I doubt that these people even get out of the car very much to get a look around and figure out what is going on with the storm structure.


-David Douglas
Austin, TX

 

[Mike Peregrine]

It's a learning experience for the younger chasers, same as it was (and still is) for all of us. Everyone figures it out in their own way and we've all had pretty close calls at one time or another. I think it's true that we should be honest with ourselves and admit how this is working, though. And each of us should decide what we are personally going to do to improve the situation.

 

[Ben Holcomb]

I can assure everyone here that we don't solely rely on just radar data. Kory and Kenny have been doing this for over 10 years now, and know how to read a storm. Yesterdays unfortunate mishap came from a poor road network, poor visibility, loss of radar data and loss of me on the cellphone. If you were watching the cam before it happened, you would have seen that they slowly crested a hill and immediately turned around. They thought they had gotten out of the way where they were at, then all of a sudden realized they had debris inflowing into the Tornado. Next thing they knew they were spinning and having the debris shot back at them.

Now, we do try to use everything we can to our advantage. That's why we use Radar, and usually have a couple sites open. They were so far away from anything else, that I just had Omaha open and was trying to deal with a couple disruptive people in our chat room as well. We were almost sure that they had dodged the rain wrapped tornado and gotten themselves to safety - It's just really unfortunate that a bunch of things going wrong all at once contributed to this. Again, it was not intentional by any means.

 

[J West]

Taking off of what Gene just mentioned...fact is, there are no "accidents". It's a cause and effect relationship. A person does "this" and the result is "that". In the case of a lot of "chasers", there is a heavy reliance on nowcasting via phone and 5 minute old radar data on their laptops, PDA's etc. without ever looking out the window long enough to see what the storm is doing in real time. Whether a person knows storm structure and can "read" a storm or not, the heavy reliance on technology looks like it is starting to be a hinderance. If a chaser makes a decision on old radar data or poor nowcasting via phone and subsequently gets caught in a situation because of it, that is not an accident. I'm not saying the world is perfect or that sh*t doesn't happen once in a while, but in my mind there is no reason a chaser should be so out of position that they get hit by a tornadic circulation when they are ones that there, on the ground, looking at the storm.

Hopefully, with this last incident the people involved learn from it and move on. It is a good thing that nobody was hurt/killed, but that was due to luck and luck always runs out at some point.

 

[Donald Giuliano]

At some point accident becomes reckless behavior and we as a group need to admit this fact.

I have to agree with this, and will use an example from one of my own experiences earlier this year as evidence of this.

On May 23 we were chasing the first Quinter storm, and wound up trying to catch up to it on some of those awful back roads just north of Quinter. After awhile we were able to creep up to it, but in doing so had to get close to the flanking line where a new meso was forming, at which time the flanking line started to bow out to our SSW as the new RFD surge developed. In order to get away, we were forced to take an east "road" (it was our only option) which turned out to be little more than a mud pit at times. Our driver was somehow able to pull us through this for 5 miles (fishtailing the entire way), but we all were scared half to death, about wet our pants during the process, and had to spend two hours cleaning all the mud out of the tires later that evening because it threw the balance off.

Now sure, it was an "accident" that we had to take that road (none of us wanted to, that's for sure!), but I agree with Gene--the real question is "What the heck were we doing there in the first place?" Getting close to the flanking line and reducing the margin for error on a day like May 23 where terrible roads abound is just asking for it. As a navigator with considerable chasing experience I should have known better and consider it a stupid, overconfident move that caused us a lot of trouble and could have very easily caused us a lot more. Unsurprisingly, after that experience when we intercepted the second Quinter storm that day we gave the circulation a wide berth, and never got closer than probably 4-5 miles from the tornado. There will always be another storm, under better conditions, where it is safe to make a close approach.

Now did that cost us some great video of the 2nd Quinter storm? Maybe so, but we still got decent video and it's also nice to be alive and with our health and vehicle intact. Besides, one thing I'm finding is that on many storms the "sweet spot" for getting great video is close but not insanely close--usually something like 1-5 miles, depending on storm speed and the size of the the storm/tornado. Anything closer than that really requires a slow-mover under ideal conditions, otherwise I find it nearly impossible to shoot good video, and that by getting too close I've actually degraded the quality of the video. I have no problem getting fairly close, being hit by the RFD, etc., but don't expect to get great video of it--in my experience 9 times out of 10 it's not going to look like much, and even the 10th time you're going to be disappointed when it fails to even remotely capture what was happening at the time. After all, the closer one gets, the narrower the field of view is for the camcorder, even with a wide-angle lens. Maybe some folks get excited by it, but a viewfinder full of blowing rain/dust just doesn't do it for me.

 

[beaudodson]

Wow - the high horses are riding fast today

FOX is interviewing the guys that chased the tornado in Iowa yesterday (the boy scout camp tornado). They had been providing the NWS with up to the minute reports on the tornado as it hit several towns. They are saying that they enjoy chasing because of the public good. Are they lying? Who are we to say. That is what they say and we should take their word for it.

I am certain that they did not intentionally drive into a tornado yesterday. How stupid do you think they are? They have been chasing for a decade or more. They made a mistake - a bad judgment call. One could be miles away from the tornado and bit hit by lightning. No difference. It is all dangerous and risky. This is the passion that drives storm chasers.

Why do people post photos on this forum? Why post this thread? Why post chase forecasts and reports? Who cares? Who is our audience on StormTrack? Each other? The public? The media?

We chase and photograph weather for different reasons. Whether you are using a storm chase cam, live blogging, posting photos after the event - we all do it because we love weather and love emergency management.

I would suggest that people not speak for other people when it comes to WHY they do something without first talking to the person. Ask them why - not the forum. Posters have made judgments against several chasers (not just this thread but MANY threads) and they don't even know the chaser and have not talked to them. Just a thought. I am sure most of us (I know I have) have made comments that we later regretted or should have kept to ourselves.

I applaud the chasers that give their live reports to the NWS, media, and the public. If you are doing it for the fame and glory then that is your business. Nobody has to answer to anyone. We are all adults and we live in a free country.

Interview here
http://www.keloland.com/videoarchive/index.cfm?VideoFile=061208asliveweb

Storm chasers, Kenny Allen and Kory Hartman of Severestudios.com found themselves in a very dangerous situation Wednesday night. A tornado they were chasing struck them as they were giving reports to local news affiliates.

 

[Steve Miller]

Posters have made judgments against several chasers (not just this thread but MANY threads) and they don't even know the chaser and have not talked to them.

I think most of these type of posters are using the guide I just posted on my blog:
http://hamwx.blogspot.com/

 

[Eric Treece]

First of all I am glad those guys are ok. 2nd ....the one thing that is becoming a reccuring theme, and this year it is really standing out more than in the past is "chasers caught in tornadic circulation." I don't think live cams have anything to do with that. I think that is crazy to even use that as a valid reason. Is it possible that we are beginning to think we know more than mother nature and are becoming complacent? Are the very tools that we use causing us to become a little too agressive in our chase practices? I know for a fact that I am a little more willing to get closer to the action than I was 5 years ago? Is that because I have more experience? Or is it because I am relying solely on the tools that I use to get me into that position in the first place? In the heat of the moment I have never really thought about it. But I think it is something we should all ask ourselves. Some of us are getting closer and closer to the action. At what point do we say "enough is enough"?

 

[J West]

Getting struck by lightning near a storm while chasing falls into "occupational hazard" or the "sh*t happens" category. Driving into a tornado during daylight does not...it was as Beau said, a bad judgement call. Steve Miller's diagram is spot on for alot of the flaming that has been done this spring.

 

[David Drummond]

But I think it is something we should all ask ourselves. Some of us are getting closer and closer to the action. At what point do we say "enough is enough"?

There is a simple answer to that. When the person chasing has exceeded their personal comfort zone for being in close (and not necessarily what is comfortable to others), then enough is enough.

I've exceeded mine a few times unintentionally. Didn't like it, didn't care for it, scared the **** out of myself doing it. Will it happen again? Maybe. I hope not. Good intentions and escape plans don't always work out perfectly. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.