Does spotter training need improving? [Archive]

Brian Barnes

03-05-2009, 05:29 AM

I’m wondering if anyone besides me believes that the standards for “basic storm spotter training” should be raised a bit. I don’t want to bruise anyone’s feelings posting that, but here is my thought –

In the past 2 years there have been 2 storm spotters killed in the “line of duty”. At least that I know of, the Macksville, KS PD officer and a volunteer fire fighter in Seneca, MO. Both deaths were the result of a direct tornado impact – not hydroplaning, car accident, etc… But, this is 2 to many storm spotter deaths – it’s now a “statistic” of 1 spotter death per year for the previous two years.

A lot of people here, including me, personally know at least one WCM and we all know how hard they work– again, I don’t want to bruise any feelings…I think they do an amazing job for what they have to work with and I applaud them all!

But, I’m wondering if the general consensus is starting to be that curriculum for basic/general storm spotter training should be raised a bit (or left alone, but taught with better tools), and if or not it should be a mandatory training item for any “agent” of a city, or county municipality (not talking about file clerks, but LEO or fire fighters whether paid or volunteer – anyone who may be asked to perform storm spotting duties on the job)?

I’ve got 17 “spotter certification certificates” in my desk drawer just because I opt to sit through a short-course in my county every February – I attend to assist if asked (even if I’m just asked to help pack up), but since I sign-in, I receive a certificate.

A few years ago I purchased a winter home in Florida and when digging through the Ruskin, FL WFO’s website one day I found this: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tbw/TampaBaySkywarnOnlineQuiz.htm, I answered the 25 questions and had a new certificate in my mailbox a few days later (and this one has a little perforated area at the bottom for a card that can be laminated…so it looks all official and stuff!). Hence the sarcasm, the “prerequisite” of being a “certified” spotter in some CWAs is pretty lax, in my opinion.

I’m not sure what, if anything could be done to expand the quality of the training received at these courses. But, for the most part they are a series of watching videos focusing on the rear flank and covering additional topics such as flash flooding (the El Paso “Call 911, Call 911” video anyone?).

Most industries today, and the military use far advanced training tools than videos, photos and diagrams. Soldiers are being trained using 3D “virtual reality” tools (combat simulators) and a lot of industries are using similar tools to educate their workforce – including law enforcement. Fire fighters can now fight an incredible fire in the back of a truck trailer that can simulate any number of real conditions that they will face during their jobs.

This all being said – it could be the case that both the Macksville PD officer and the Seneca fire fighter could have been very well versed on the subject and it was just the other variables that got them (i.e.: Seneca, MO is hilly, has a lot of trees – making storm spotting difficult and Greensburg supercell was just crazy and insane all around).

But I’m betting that if either of them had more direct knowledge of what they were up against, or access to some visual tools – or at the very least direct communication with a trained nowcaster (such as a dispatcher, or 911 center with GR Level II and proper training in “spotter coordination”) that it might have bettered their chances of survival.

Additionally – the spotter training that I’ve sat through focused primarily on teaching the individual the basics of storm structure and various risk and hazards. But perhaps just something as simple as training a few within their respective departments, or EOCs how to keep their spotters safe could add some value to any storm spotting program. Much like how OK-FIRST has trained EOCs for the past several years in Oklahoma.

Anyone else have similar thoughts? Or am I alone in thinking this?

Bryce Stone

03-05-2009, 07:05 AM

I agree with you 100%, but the implementation is where I get lost. Many of the spotter training presentations I've been to seem little more than meet-your-buddies-and-shoot-the-bull-during-breaks sessions. Not only that, but I've talked to people who've been to these yearly presentations for many years and still have little to no idea what they're looking at in the field.

I myself was a spotter for four years and didn't know jack until I became a chaser. So yeah, I agree with you. The yearly spotter presentations may provide people with just enough information to get them hurt in the field.

But how does one provide effective, real-world knowledge without providing real-world experience? That's the problem here, since a storm cannot be brought in to provide hands-on knowledge during a training session. An interactive computer program is a good suggestion, but the cost of implementation could limit its widespread use.

At the least, I would like to see the NWS go way more interactive with the presentations. Real-time scenarios with feedback would greatly improve the amount of knowledge imparted, IMO, and would be a great first step in the right direction.

APritchard

03-05-2009, 09:59 AM

When my father was younger, he was an ESDA spotter for the county. They were put through about 20 hours of classroom training, took exams, and then had to spend a certain amount of time riding along with another spotter who already had been certified.

The current method of a yearly 2 hour session doesn't even come close, and is the reason that I no longer use a police scanner while chasing to listen to the garbage that comes from 90% of the spotter networks out there.

John Diel

03-05-2009, 10:12 AM

The majority of Spotters in our area (North Central Oklahoma) are generally retired or just about to retire folks. Most have no interest in getting more advanced training. Each city and county agency has their own requirements and method which includes NWS Spotter class at least every 2 years.

I would think that the more advanced training would be best utilized, would be with the EM Managers. The folks that are supposed to direct and manage where the Spotters are. Blackwell, Oklahoma does a very good job of this.

PD's, FD's and SD's are not required to be Spotters. They are not required to have the training. It's an oversight that I don't agree with, but then, that's why we have EM departments and Storm Spotters, right?

OK First puts out an excellent program. It's geared towards the EM Managers and for what it does, it does very well. However, it really falls to the "Management" side of the coin. The EM Director really must be in control and Manage the people he has out spotting for him. Hence the assigned sectors. Again, we fall to the Most Spotters are retired thing again. In the case up here, Most EM Managers are retired from one agency or another and take the EM position to pad the retirement. That's not all of them though. But a very big chunk of them are in this category.

I agree that more interactive and one on one training would be useful. Having to take a test or quiz afteward would be beneficial. The NWS Spotter Training classes presented each year ARE getting better and better. I've certainly noticed a difference over the years. Some of the trainers are better than others, each one has their own style.

However, in the end you can only put so much into a 2 hour course and still keep one's student's attention. Also, these guys are volunteers. It's their time and gas. Alienate them and you lose your eyes and ears.

JD

Chris Lott

03-05-2009, 11:28 AM

I went to the one in McLennan Co.(Waco,TX) this year and it was a fairly low turnout due to previous years. The thinking is since there is rarely severe weather in the area, the less need for spotters, which I totally disagree with. There were a few new people this year, and the advanced spotter training for the "new" people seemed to catch people off guard. I overheard a guy talking to someone on his cellphone saying " this is hard stuff." A lot of people think it's just looking at a cloud and looking for a tornado. As has been said on here before, if you don't understand storm structure you can get yourself into serious trouble. I was listening to a local weather net the night of the 2/10/2009 event when the squall line came through, and heard a guy talking about a tornado cloud. I also heard a guy on the same frequency giving reports of golf ball size hail in his area. The next day the same guy was speaking as if he wasn't sure if it was golf ball size or not. He said it had to be as hard as it was hitting his windshield. Scary stuff when you have spotters who aren't sure what they are seeing.

A Newcomb

03-05-2009, 09:00 PM

I'm going to the one in Hendricks Co, IN on Saturday afternoon. My dad took me to the previous 3, but I'll be going on my own this year. I'll easily be the youngest (16) one there. I agree that the training needs to be changed someway, somehow. While Central Indiana's spotter system is known as one of the better ones in the country, there are still things that 'grind my gears' sometime. (Eg, many reports of heavy rain, and wind....okay...we're aware of that...)

I guess it has been a long off season for me to get into a lot of details, I'll have to add to this after Saturday.

John Olexa

03-06-2009, 01:44 PM

I took all mine at the National Weather Service Forecast office in Sterling VA. (pre 9-11) now they don't hold any there.
They were pretty good in there training.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/lwx/skywarn/skywarn.htm
I took:
basic 1
basic 2
Flash flood
Winter storms

Scott LaFlesh

03-06-2009, 07:36 PM

I'm going to a Skywarn class on March 17th. I've never been to one so I'll let you know if there are any differences here in upstate NY as opposed to the training in the more central states. I was told that the classes generally last 1 1/2 to 2 hours though so I assume it's the same or a very similar curriculum. My only curiosity will be if they focus more on extreme winter weather and thunderstorms since tornadoes here are pretty rare.

David Drummond

03-06-2009, 08:01 PM

I'm going to stir the pot here and suggest that it isn't just some spotters but quite a few chasers that need additional training as to what they are seeing before they start making reports. Not to derail the thread, but reports are reports regardless of the title the person gives themselves. Chasers often wear the spotter hat.

In recent years (particularly last year) I watched quite a bit of reports pop up on spotter network from chasers just a very short distance down the road from me, looking at the same thing I am.

I saw non-rotating scud reported as funnels. I saw some of that scud that on the leading edge of some outflow that also had the outflow dust foot under it, reported (multiple times by the same person) as a landspout (there was ZERO rotation). This person should know better, as they were driving for one of the popular tour groups out there.

I saw a large gustnado reported as a large tornado by yet the leader of a separate tour group.

And these were all on the same day even!!!

I see this every time I am out. I can't help but wonder how many more of these false reports are being called in. Seriously...tornadic circulation is not that hard to identify once you see it and not every piece of cloud that rotates a little is a tornado either.

I've seen quite a few chasers posting stuff on their websites calling something a wall cloud, or a funnel cloud or a tornado when it's very clear, even from the still image they posted, that it was not any of those things.

Sorry for a little rant, but this is really starting to become a pet peeve for me over the years. I've always believed anything worth doing is worth doing right, even if that means getting a little education first.

We were all green at some point. There is nothing wrong with being new and green. But if you are not 100% sure of exactly what you are reporting, then don't report it as that. We "chasers" often seem to like to hold ourselves to a higher level than "spotters" (whether justified or not), but these sorts of reports are not any better than the "it's getting dark and raining here" reports you hear from spotters sometimes.

Then again, I really don't know what to say if you are one of those that actually think a non-rotating hangy down scud thing with some linear moving dust under it really IS a landspout. :eek:

A. Scruggs

03-06-2009, 08:48 PM

David, you hit the nail on the head. Spotters and chasers can use some better training.

I agree that some spotters are currently hamstrung by the lack of a net control without radar. Proper training for new and inexperienced spotter/chasers is very important. After a few years, I think there is no better training than actually getting out and watching the storms. When you think about law enforcement and fire department spotters, they usually only cover a single county (the one they work in) and therefore are limited in the number of storms they can observe (unless they also chase during off shifts). True chasers have an advantage in that they are not bound by any commitments to any local or national governing body and can chase whatever storm strikes their fancy, in whatever county or state.

Having been a spotter for 15 years now I don't think I get much out of either the beginner's 2-hour class nor the "advanced" 2-hour class. I've got the theory and mechanisms of thunderstorm development and progression pretty well down. However, as a spotter for the NWS I'm still required to attend training every two years, and I will continue to do this faithfully. Even with the experience I have I still try to learn something from each storm I chase. The storms usually don't disappoint.

Alan

Jim Saueressig

03-06-2009, 08:59 PM

I saw non-rotating scud reported as funnels. I saw some of that scud that on the leading edge of some outflow that also had the outflow dust foot under it, reported (multiple times by the same person) as a landspout (there was ZERO rotation). This person should know better, as they were driving for one of the popular tour groups out there.

I saw a large gustnado reported as a large tornado by yet the leader of a separate tour group.

And these were all on the same day even!!!

I see this every time I am out. I can't help but wonder how many more of these false reports are being called in. Seriously... tornadic circulation is not that hard to identify once you see it and not every piece of cloud that rotates a little is a tornado either.

I've seen quite a few chasers posting stuff on their websites calling something a wall cloud, or a funnel cloud or a tornado when it's very clear, even from the still image they posted, that it was not any of those things.

Sorry for a little rant, but this is really starting to become a pet peeve for me over the years. I've always believed anything worth doing is worth doing right, even if that means getting a little education first.

It doesn't help when the people seeking to be informed are finding the same thing you are talking about as their lessons. I myself have seen numerous reports and videos here on ST claiming a tornado, wall cloud, funnel cloud etc and I just don't see it in the videos. Sometimes it is obviously not what they think they saw but sometimes it is not so clear. I start thinking I am ignoring things I should be reporting when I see enough "professionals" reporting something I surely don't see. I guess I will stick with what works best, If it's 100% positive I will call it in, if I am not 100% I will ask later from a picture.... Even then it's not a sure thing because on the few occasions I have asked about a feature or something I can get even more answers than I thought possible.

Tim Shriver

03-06-2009, 09:08 PM

The Basic spotter classes are just that, basic. They make it clear at ours
that attending this one class does not make you a spotter, but
attending it every year and seeking out further knowledge
is the key.

Many of our members in the past and it looks like some more will attend
this year, a 10 class, 3 hour per class Advanced Spotter Class.
This is supplied no charge to us from M.A.S.T..

While this may be a little overkill and think he could cut it down some,
it is a very good class. One that brings the level of knowledge and performance of the
spotter up a notch or two.

In the end it is up to the spotter to seek further education.
Don't wait around for the government to hand you everything.
(unless your a bank or GM)

Tim

Andrew Herron

03-06-2009, 11:32 PM

Just as soon as you guys start volunteering your time to further train spotters and chasers in your area, we'll get some results.

While I'm sure none of you would even consider saying that the NWS mets should work harder, they're under constraints too. You simply cannot cover the material in a way that would benefit everyone from the first time attendee to the seasoned spotter.

Want something more advanced? Set it up. Talk to your EM or RACES/Skywarn coordinators and see if there's something that can be worked out. Expecting a second class or more beyond the basic class from our NWS mets is just irrisponsible. They have primary jobs to do and I'd rather have them watching the weather than taking the time to do something that I've already done on my own.

*****, moan, or gripe all you want, but if you see something that needs to be done and you've got enough time to complain about it... you've got enough time to step up and help out.

As a RACES/Skywarn coordinator I, along with the other AEC and EC, am doing all I can to help educate people. We've set up multiple trainings, probably more than we should bother the NWS with, and we're there to offer support. The training I got when I was younger was enough to make me seek out more information. It caused me to find places like this where I can talk to the more experienced. The ultimate solution is YOU.

I'm sorry, but there's no doubt that the Commerce Department isn't going to see a sudden jump in funding, and therefore you should not expect a sudden change in policy with regards to training of spotters.

Tim is right, but at the same time we also shouldn't just expect people to do it on their own. There are people who don't know they don't know. It's up to us, the more experienced, to show them what's what and how to be better at their VOLUNTEER service. We might even learn something about ourselves in the process.

As far as the class DTX offers, specifically this year, I think it was very well put together. It does in fact get more deep into the dynamics of storm development and what to look for. There's even an interactive quiz to help distinguish SCUD from the real deal.

I recognize all the time and effort put into all of this, and while all offices are different, there's not a one of us here who can't say we don't appreciate what the NWS mets do.

If you have specific suggestions or comments about the training course that's presented, I suggest you contact the WCM at your NWS office and not bugger up this forum. It will be much better recieved by them and your efforts will be better utilized.

David Drummond

03-06-2009, 11:48 PM

Andrew Herron

03-06-2009, 11:58 PM

David, I never said you, or anyone else. I was being as general as possible.

Don't know about you, but if things were bad enough, their lack of support wouldn't stop me. It's not against the law to give your own training. If you're willing to devote the time to offer it, then why not just do it?

David Drummond

03-07-2009, 12:07 AM

Andrew Herron

03-07-2009, 12:23 AM

I see your point! "...drove the Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry?"

There IS only so much you can do and my comments weren't directed to you or anyone else who volunteers. It just bugs me that some people see fit to soapbox here when really they should be directing their thoughts and comments to the WCM.

Jim Saueressig

03-07-2009, 02:05 PM

Hah, you have been here in my county! We even have our own radar......

But you will never tell anyone here that they don't know it all and need more training, it pains me to listen to the radar summaries and field reports at times and especially when I am looking at what was just reported as _________!

They only use their fireman, they take no one else anymore and sometimes the fellows that head out are already so tanked it's a flipping wonder there haven't been reports of little green men falling from the sky!

For instance, in one particular county, I hear them on the scanner when storms are in their area, they activate their little EOC and their designated people go out and look. I can tell from being in the same places as they are, or by noting their locations and what they are trying to see, that they could very much benefit from additional training. They have a main guy at the EOC that gives out radar info he's getting from the local TV station website (not all that great and not very frequently updated). Bless his heart, he tried but it's clear he really does not know what he is looking at 90% of the time.

I offered the Sheriff one time when we talked to come up and give then some more detailed radar training. I was hoping he would take me up on that, and maybe it could eventually move in to giving them more detailed instructions on chasing the storms in their county, which is what they attempt to do.

I was told they had classes from the NWS and they have a guy that knows all about the radar.

Which is why I guess I hear him say things like "well the it's green and I think there might be some hail because there is some yellow just north of ______" and it's clear even by that he's looking at radar over an hour old.

Just one example. Hopefully my experiences aren't the norm. I'm absolutely all for volunteering some time for some more in depth training, but they have to be receptive to it.

Terry Tyler

03-08-2009, 04:45 AM

I dont buy into the fact someone can be "certified" by a two-hour class. Ive been to plenty of classes and its all pretty much the same subject matter. Its good and educational and all that but i felt like it was missing something. There wasnt any kind of "certification" from what i saw. You just signed in and sat there.

My philosophy on the matter is this. I believe that its better to have 100 "trained" spotters then 3000 "untrained" spotters. If your considering a layman who comes in off the street with no prior education to severe storms. You cant expect him to be a viable spotter and fully understand storm structure and mechanics the first time around. It has taken me years to get to this education level and sometimes i still dont know what im looking at.

Opening the doors to anybody is just setting yourself up to get more conflicting reports. When you start getting a bunch of bull**** coming in, you start losing the integrity of ground truth information. I strongly agree along the lines of what apritchard was talking about. Instead of having a 2-hour meet twice a year. I would propose that people have to go through and fill out several detailed applications to be a NWS spotter. I also think that people need to go through about 20 hours of extensive training and be tested on their knowledge at the end of each session. I also like the idea of doing a little ride along to view a real-life thunderstorm.

Having rigorous standards is critical to having good, reliable reports. I know there are some that would say that its crazy to expect people to jump through hoops like that, but the way i see it. Its the hoops that would attract only the best and brightest to go out there. Only someone who truly had a hard on to be a spotter would go through there. A program like that would be a dual sided blade that weeds out those who are too lazy or uncommited to follow through and provides more detailed training to those who really do care and want to do a good job.

Ive been to too many classes where the instructor says "im sorry, ill try to wrap this up as soon as possible". Somehow i feel thats where the problem lies. I believe as with anything, if your going to do something, you might as well go all the way. Otherwise its best not to go at all. If you packed all your yearly funds spent on current spotter training and consolidated it all to one 20 hour-course session held one week once a year at a reputable university camperson. You would have less spotters coming out but alot higher quality spotters.

terra seright

03-08-2009, 05:56 AM

That's my point though. In all the ones I personally have spoken with (I'm not talking about NWS), they all feel that the 1-2 hour classes the NWS comes out and gives them is all they ever need. How can you volunteer additional training if they don't want it?

For instance, in one particular county, I hear them on the scanner when storms are in their area, they activate their little EOC and their designated people go out and look. I can tell from being in the same places as they are, or by noting their locations and what they are trying to see, that they could very much benefit from additional training. They have a main guy at the EOC that gives out radar info he's getting from the local TV station website (not all that great and not very frequently updated). Bless his heart, he tried but it's clear he really does not know what he is looking at 90% of the time.

I offered the Sheriff one time when we talked to come up and give then some more detailed radar training. I was hoping he would take me up on that, and maybe it could eventually move in to giving them more detailed instructions on chasing the storms in their county, which is what they attempt to do.

I was told they had classes from the NWS and they have a guy that knows all about the radar.

Which is why I guess I hear him say things like "well the it's green and I think there might be some hail because there is some yellow just north of ______" and it's clear even by that he's looking at radar over an hour old.

Just one example. Hopefully my experiences aren't the norm. I'm absolutely all for volunteering some time for some more in depth training, but they have to be receptive to it.

OK, new spotter here, and I'm speaking my mind, please don't take offense y'all, but I calls it like I sees it.

I fully agree with the points that have been made here...but let's look at it from the other side!

One thing that has been a hurdle for my family is that the training schedule is not easy to find if you don't know where to look. We watched the news for the workshop info for 2 months and never heard a thing about it last year. This year, we'd done some research and found the local NOAA guy's email.

Then, we go to the meeting, and I had hell getting a good grasp on it because of the guy in the row behind me constantly commenting on EVERY photo and video. This is one of our local emergency services guys, believe it or not. As if the comments weren't loud enough to break my ability to pay careful attention, he was also smack-talking on "new spotters" every time they showed people who got stuck/washed away/hailed on...

I couldn't answer any of the little "pop quiz" questions because I hadn't heard all of the lecture. I had to go back and study on my own and didn't have the ability to ask questions on the material, since I had not heard enough to know what I didn't understand about it.

Another issue---Have you all been to any of the spotter chat rooms? I've asked questions in there, and rarely gotten them answered. I joined some of these chats because I thought I could get a better idea about what I'm doing out in the field, and get some quick answers to questions that I might have. Nope. Most of my questions are completely ignored. There are some who will answer, but mostly I'm left with a feeling like I'm not part of the elite clique, so I should STFU. I understand that sometimes in the chats, people are paying attention to the chases that may be happening at the time, but really, how much trouble is it to answer a question here and there?

Here are a few that I've asked recently...and been completely ignored.

How far off can one see a tornado? How reliable is the tornado history project? Is the RFD always on the same side of a tornado? Can you get a clearing (RFD) without an actual tornado touching down? Can you get a tornado without an RFD? Do tornadoes ever appear from the tower, or is it always from the wall? (yea I know these should be on another thread, I'm just using them for the point I'm making here)

My point is:
Some of us are receptive..........but we hit brick walls.

Yes, the training should be much more in-depth, and accessible, because (for one thing) I should not have had to learn not to punch a core by way of a microburst moving the truck to the other lane, tires off the pavement. I know it was a microburst and not a macroburst because I found it in the Advanced Spotter's Field Guide earlier today. The training should also be a class and not a "good time to meet your buddies and talk about the accident that you worked earlier in the day". Thank God I watch the news story that they put out every year during severe weather awareness week, or I'd have thought I was in a tornado when I was in a gustnado, similar to a report made in one of the posts above!

Jason Boggs

03-08-2009, 06:59 AM

OK,

How far off can one see a tornado? How reliable is the tornado history project? Is the RFD always on the same side of a tornado? Can you get a clearing (RFD) without an actual tornado touching down? Can you get a tornado without an RFD? Do tornadoes ever appear from the tower, or is it always from the wall? (yea I know these should be on another thread, I'm just using them for the point I'm making here)

1. It all depends on the atmospheric conditions as to how far you can see a tornado. It depends on lightning, dust or pollutants in the air, among other things. Storm evolution such as HP (rain wrapped tornado) or LP storms play a role in the visibility of tornadoes. Some tornadoes can be seen for maybe 10 miles or more, while others cannot be seen until you're very close.

2. Have no idea.

3. I don't think the RFD is always on the same side. I think it would depend if it's cyclonic or anticyclonic.

4. You can get an RFD without a tornado forming. If the RFD isn't strong or warm enough, a tornado may not form. There are a lot of papers and essays on RFD interaction and tornado formation.

5. I imagine you can get a tornado without an RFD forming. It helps to have an RFD because it aids in the stretching of the vortex to the ground.

6. Nothing says that tornadoes have to form from a wall cloud. Most of the time they do, but not always. It just depends on where the localized rotation is the strongest. Again, wall clouds typically produce tornadoes, but it's a good idea to have your head on a swivel looking at other areas. A lot of times Mother Nature doesn't play by the book.

Be aware that I'm definitely not an expert on any of these subjects that I answered. Some may even be totally wrong, If they are, someone please correct me.

terra seright

03-08-2009, 10:48 AM

LOL. Jason, thank you so very much! Hehe, I may bring cookies for the KAMR booth at the workshop!

Add:

If anyone would like to organize a training class on their own, I'm sure there would be some interested parties. I don't the sherriff's office or the EM folks would even have to be involved. Maybe the EM folks believe their limited training is enough, but I'm sure that us plain-clothed people of the community would welcome more opportunities to learn. I can tell you that there are 4 of us who would attend for sure...especially if the word gets out through fliers or on the radio. There's no need for a TV commercial, really. Word of mouth on amateur radio would do it too--you wouldn't believe how many of us are scanner geeks (course, as of yesterday, I'm a licensed ham hehe).

And I am intersested in seeing how many show up for the workshop in a couple of weeks, too.

John Diel

03-08-2009, 11:57 AM

I think it's a given that better training is needed. The NWS does a very good job, but it isn't really enough. Keeping this on the Spotter level (Spotter meaning the folks that don't venture far away from their home town and report to a specific authority), I go back to my original presumption: Dedication, funding and interest. If I were to require "ride alongs", "certifications", and more "stringent training" I would loose 98% of the Spotters in the entire County! I really doubt that there would be enough "new" interest to make up 4% of the 98% lost.

Living in one of the more tornado prone area of Oklahoma, this would be a devastating loss of eyes and ears.

It's not easy as almost any EM will tell you. The volunteers are exactly that. They get no pay, no reimbursement, and little recognition. It's not as glamorous as a Volunteer Fire Fighter and it sometimes require long hours at night. I could go on and on here.

I believe that the NWS training is a very good start. Unfortunately, too many view this as the "Alpha and Omega". Beyond requiring that Spotters attend either annual and bi-annual training, there's not much that can be done. Personally, I talk to all of our Spotters directly associate with the County. I explain to them that I would be more than happy to give them the tools and train them to my level any time they wish. Just keep me going with coffee. Have any of them taken me up on it? Not yet.

JD

terra seright

03-08-2009, 12:57 PM

Understood, John. Everything you just mentioned would be welcomed with my group...

But there are only 4 of us. There were about 30 people at the spotter training last month, and about half of them were with the local EM, who were "dragged in" for their usual training.

I really think that if the word got out in our area for sure, more interest would be shown. The local EM here is the HQ for the spotters...these are the ones who spot storms around the city during storm season and then work accidents and other catastrophies the rest of the time. And no, they don't seem very happy to do it. The meeting that we attended after spotter training was basically a lecture
"Don't gab on the radio. remember the 15-3-15 rule."
"Folks, be specific about where you are located in case something happens, so we can find you."

If you require the more stringent training, it's not as enticing, lol. The NOAA guys did a great job with their power point presentation...but then the info was very basic, and the "regulars" in the class made it difficult to learn. I do feel like I got a certificate just because I showed up tho....almost like I cheated. lol

I am always eager to learn more, as is my son and my Husband, and a good friend of ours who got into chasing/spotting because of the fun we've had. Most people we know say we're crazy, but would love to come along when we go. We're not in it just to get photos or be a warning system. We are also setting up to be of assistance to victims. We've taken our amateur radio tests and are planning a CPR class next.

But we're having to seek out this knowledge on our own. No one is putting out the info about it.

Jason Tunzer

03-08-2009, 01:53 PM

Great topic here! I just wanted to let thoes interested know what we do here for training. In order to join our spotter group we put on 2- 6 hour training classes that our advanced spotters teach,they are required to attend both classes as well as the NWS training class. For their first season they only go out with an advanced spotter,no exceptions. That way we know they are safe and they can also "learn on the job" so to speak. To graduate they need to have 3 severe weather deployments and the spotters that they deployed with must also sign off on them. It's alot of extra hours for us to put this on since we put together our own curriculum and teach the class, but I feel confident that we are getting reliable and accurate reports and our spotters will go home safe after a job well done.

A. Scruggs

03-08-2009, 09:26 PM

Terra, one of the things the local NWS spotters group tries to do is to pair a newcomer with an experienced spotter to help you understand what you are watching and how it related to the training that NWS provides. The newcomers I've spoken to enjoyed this mentoring.

As far as spotters or chasers that won't give you the time of day - ignore them. There are others that will be more than willing to help.

Alan

David Drummond

03-08-2009, 09:48 PM

terra seright

03-09-2009, 02:19 PM

Yeah, unfortunately in our area, there was no pairing, just the lil class. However, through this site, I've found some good folks and sources of info. Networking with others on here is helpful. Chad is one who has been very friendly, and we're excited to meet him on the 21st, at his booth at the severe weather workshop...as well as others.

Jason, that sounds like a great learning experience for new spotters!! Good job!

Brian Barnes

03-10-2009, 02:15 AM

Of course Andrew, you assume that none of us have ever done that. I've spoken at some of the spotter meetings, but outside of that I have offered, many times to various EM, law enforcement, fire dept, etc to come out and give them some more specialized training.

Would you like to guess what I was told in every case?

"The National Weather Service already comes out and gives us training."

Yep, they feel that is enough.

I second David on this and I know of a few of his attempts first hand. I guess some things in my inquiry here was lost in translation, that's okay. But, while seeing reports from "that guy that we always hear on spotter nets" on the Spotter Network making really ignorant reports is also something that bugs me (as well as most of us) - it's not the main issue that I am concerned with. My focus here was how we could approach LEO/Fire and get through exactly what David has stated above - "NWS already provides us with spotter training".

I'm concerned about the "statistic" of 1 storm spotter death per year now for the past two years. And, not so much about seeing the 15mph high wind gust report.

SKYWARN is a grassroots effort. NWS didn't come up with the idea - but they have adopted it and it's a great effort that allows them a vehicle to get training into community centers. But in my opinion, its not enough if storm spotters are getting killed. Obviously I understand that situations just happen and even the best trained spotters could get killed and I don't know the level of training that the deceased had participated in either. But the first rule to any response is to make sure YOU survive because you're no good to anyone in the form of assistance if you're dead. And there were other spotters/chasers on both these storms that didn't place themselves in the situations and were later available to help with the initial response/rescue phase.

I think there are basically 2 types of storm spotters. Those who enjoy it and want to do it as a hobby. And those who do it because it's a requirement of their professional careers. It's the latter that will find themselves sitting on a dark county road at 3 am when the former decide it's too dark and go home, and it's the latter that (so far) have been fatally injured.

So if you were asked by someone who had influence over that second type of spotter on how they could improve their storm spotting/weather decision programs, what would your recommendations be?

For example - this would be mine...

A police officer typically has with them a radio and cell phone and their first line of contact is a dispatcher or 911 center. During severe weather events the chain of communication in small rural communities normally has to be routed through a dispatcher from NWS then relayed to the "spotter" and vice versa.

Since we have such great technology these days allowing any home or office PC to have more instant information available to users than WFOs had just a few years ago - why not train dispatchers on subjects like "basic" radar interpretation and put GR Level II in front of them. I know its a vast subject but there are some common echo signatures that can be easily identified with minimal effort - they don't have to identify velocity couplets, etc.. but just seeing a where a storm's rear flank is on radar along with the "spotters" GPS position on-screen might allow the dispatcher to shave a few seconds off from touching base with their spotter and requesting him/her to find a better place depending on the situation.

Just imagine for a minute that you're an officer on a smaller department somewhere and you're in your car at midnight you know the storm you're under has a history of producing tornadoes - you feel you need to be there in order to help warn your community - but you're "in the dark" and have to call your dispatcher who then has to call into a WFO for an update and then relay that message back to you. To me, that would be kind of scary - especially if I couldn't recall everything that was said in a presentation back in February...

So my one recommendation might be to create a training program for dispatchers and 911 operators. But- I could be way off track with that. I know they are busy - but with good training they should be able to quickly identify some tell tale signs of danger and quickly move their spotters if need be. Who knows - it might help. And, it's basically what OK-FIRST has done in Oklahoma, but of course that is a little more than a 2-hour training program.

And to boot - most chasers that I know (and that would be quite a few of you) are the type of people that would love to pitch in and help develop these type of programs, and some have offered and usually the result is like bouncing off a brick wall, basically what David had pointed out earlier.

[updated]
I'm also not referring to an EOC with a director who is on top of things with a well trained team. I've was once part of such an EM team and for the most part it works out well. My scenario would be best applied to those areas where there might not be an operational EOC at the time - just a few LE spotters (or fire) and a dispatcher working the night shift in small town America.
-Brian Barnes

Laura Duchesne

03-10-2009, 12:35 PM

Funny thing is, IMO the basic skywarn class I went to in Buffalo, NY seemed to have a bit more info on storm structure than what the canwarn program here in Ontario has. Recently, a group of spotters/chasers here in Ontario have been discussing on how to improve canwarn. Some have wondered if skywarn would be willing to work with canwarn, but I kinda doubt it. I wish canwarn here would follow a similar setup/organization to skywarn. Brian, it seems we have been getting the same results here... we want to help but it seems no one wants to listen. Unfortunately canwarn seems to want to avoid chasers like the plague due to liability concerns. Those guys seem to be their own breed.

Honestly, what does skywarn think of chasers and/or mobile spotting? Is there a clash between the two down there as well? EC really emphasises that their spotters stay home and watch the storm, but unfortunately sometimes it is hard to see what's doing on, as opposed to being out in the field. I've seen more when chasing vs staying home.

terra seright

03-11-2009, 01:01 PM

We went to a RACES/ARES meeting last night, and it seems that this is a good way to get more training in the TX Panhandle. There will be another spotter class next month during their regular meeting. Also, I found out about NIMS training from FEMA, and EMCOMM training. I heard that these two cover the linguistics of disaster communication, as well as other subjects... The RACES/ARES group also highly recommends ride-alongs for those who are not experienced, and everyone there was willing to take someone with them. There is a lot more training for those who have their amateur radio licenses...to include CPR, which would be helpful as well, even for spotters! Y'all go get your licenses, the first one is E*A*S*Y and there is mucho support for you on the net, to include practice exams. 35 questions and you can miss as many as 9 and still pass.

The spotter training class we took doesn't seem to emphasize home spotting over field spotting, or vise/versa, though it does cover the fact that it is safer to stay home and "porch spot". (there is a more technical term, but the loud-mouth in the class talked over that part)

The severe weather workshop that is going on at the Amarillo Civic Center on March 21sounds like a more in-depth look at the subject, with booths set up, as well as a seminar.

I was looking at some night video that I took back in 2007 last night. I used my mouse to control the speed of the video so that I could stop in a frame and see the lightning shots in still form (just to see the pretty stuff lol). I found out just how dangerous it is to spot in the dark! I had caught a stovepipe and didn't even know it. I really think that this is one thing that needs to be emphasized more heavily in spotter training. Mostly what you hear is "Chasing at night is more dangerous because it's dark and you can't see tornadoes that may be in the area." That's it. Nothing more mentioned. There were no signs, such as lights/transformers popping in the area of this tornado. Lightning has to be in just the right spot, or the tornado won't show up at all.

Also, bursts need to be highlighted. Our truck was lifted off the pavement by a rush of water and wind, and moved into the other lane--looked like a river flowing across the road for about 30 seconds. Good thing there were no other cars on that segment of the road at that moment. We need to see what a burst looks like as it hits the ground, not just that it can happen. Some bursts can look like the debris cloud on the ground from a tornado, especially if there is something resembling a funnel above it, which can make one think that a twister has actually touched down.

So if anyone's working on developing a better educational set-up---maybe you can remember what I've posted here.

Damon Poole

03-21-2009, 06:38 PM

I would say most of the spotter classes I've taken have been excellent about covering the basic and advanced topics. If someone misses something or doesn't understand, the question and answer session usually takes care of it.

craig buchanan

03-21-2009, 11:32 PM

I think NWS has a clue that things need to be changed, but I think the big problem comes in how to effectively create a program that improves the situation without turning off the needed eyes and ears. One of the initiatives they talked about during the National Severe Weather Work Shop in Norman a couple of weeks ago was creating an national SkyWarn database. This would have the benefit of creating a list of those people who have come forward but more importantly, they will be able to keep records from WFO to WFO of who is reporting what. Hopefully this is result in fewer "sherif-nados" (sorry, I work for a PD and still think that is an appropriate term).
As a companion to this, they want to standardize training across the country in much the same way they do for NWS staff. I am not sure if the Warning Decision Training Branch will be directing the training, but hopefully whoever will be taking input to heart from those who are "in the trenches".

Jesse Risley

03-23-2009, 11:15 AM

Remember that some of the effectiveness of these lessons comes down the presentation style just as much as it does the material itself. I notice that no matter who, what, when, where or why, some audience members are nodding off towards the latter half of the basic spotter training presentation. Each office does things a little "bit" differently too.

I think the material that's being presented is good, but has anyone thought of beginning with the end goal in mind and then creating some sort of an assessment (i.e. here are the objectives and this is how I'll see if the audience has learned what I presented)? There are pros to this approach, but the cons are of course related to organizing and scoring an assessment on top of what's already likely a large workload at the NWS.

However, more and more people seem to tune out "lecture style" presentations, even though it's by far one of the most effecient forms of conveying large amounts of material in a very short period of time. Perhaps a more multi-media, interactive approach could be used with an even more directed Q&A session? People tend to be more interactive and involved in the process if they are actively engaged in the discussion.

I think the NWS does a good job as is, but those are just some thoughts to mull over. In my opinion there is simply no substitute for EXPERIENCE. This is a "hands on" task, not something that can be perfected in 2 hrs at least every other year.

Gerrit Gulden

04-03-2009, 06:54 PM

Alot of good points made throughout this thread. I went to my Spotter meeting the other day and they covered the basics (winter storms, flash flooding, ice jams, tornadoes, funnels, shelf clouds, wall clouds, microbursts, flooding) and even showed look alikes and the "what would you report". Alot of people in the meeting would have reported tornado when indeed there was a fire and plume up to the base of some clouds. So I definetely understand and agree that there should be more extensive training. What I dont like for my NWS office is there is only 1 training a year. Yeah you can go to each county but your gonna get the same presentation everytime. I am jealous of those NWS offices that present multi meetings per year and the actual qualification criteria with passing an exam.

I can only hope that Spotters will do as most of us have and find online resources to learn more about the elements in weather and structure and everything that someday will come into account for the report that we make which will save a life rather than scare a bunch of people for a mistaken identity report.

-gerrit

Wes Carter

04-06-2009, 05:20 AM

Last month I went to the Spotter training in my county. The county EMS office is the one that put it on. Some were rescue squad, some were firefighters, some were deputies, and most were citizens. I thought that the guy with the NWS did an admirable job explaining things and utilized some really good visual aids, but only so much can be done in three hours. In fact, after the training was over there was a Q&A session. The questions that were asked blew my mind in some cases. "So, what's the difference between a tornado and high winds?" "Why do tornadoes follow rivers?" "How wide did you say an F5 was?" "Does a tornado follow the storm or does it drag it around?"

But the best one was a comment: "We didn't used to get all of these tornadoes until they built them lakes. Before they built them lakes they only had tornadoes out there in the prairies. They said the dams control the flooding. Well, they're right about that because the dams keeps it flooded all the time."

It reminded me of a conversation I had with a fellow at work. We just installed a hydrogen system with fuel cells on the AGV's (Automated Guided Vehicles, or robotic transports). It went something like this:

Operator: If that hydrogen tank goes, it'll take out the town.

Me: No, it wouldn't be that bad. I wouldn't want to be out back, but I don't think it would do much besides maybe take out the back wall.

Operator: S---, I seen a hydrogen bomb go off on the History Channel, it took out a whole island.

Me:Well, that was a nuclear bomb...

Operator: Yeh, and we be breathing that s---!

Me: Well, this stuff isn't radioactive. And even if it was, it's lighter than air. It rises. We don't breathe it...

Operator: Bulls---! That stuff ain't lighter than air!

Me: Yes, it's light...

Operator: Then you tell me how you put 5000 pounds in one of those little fuel cells? Lighter than air my a--!

Me: You know, you're right. Maybe you ought to bring that up at the next safety meeting.

Operator: I know I'm right, and I just might do that.

I guess my point is this: Sometimes training isn't what's needed.

Andrew.Gardonia

05-14-2009, 11:33 AM

Wes, sounds like some people just need common sense. Maybe the NWS should give out common sense tests before allowing just anyone to take a spotter training course. :D

I plan on taking my spotter training course in Nashville this month.

Neil Schostag

06-11-2009, 07:55 AM

A thought to relate...

I've been with the Ambulance for many years, starting back in the day when it was, "Oh, there volunteers, there doing the best they can, leave em alone" I also remember the change over the period of a VERY few years when things got serious. Now it's, if your going to be on the Ambulance you WILL know your job! Everyone expected to loose a lot of volunteers, but guess what, very few the weak were weeded out, all the rest stepped up. Today, whether your professional or volunteer, you take the same test. I've been doing this for 20 years and with all the current changes and updates, when I recert I damn well better pass or, I am out on the street.

I see no reason why people who are "assigned" to give the word to protect an entire community should be much different. My thought is, It's up to the NWS to up the standards, SKYWARN and others will NOT collapse, but only get stronger. Fewer, maybe, but then we've all heard, quality not quantity.

just a thought...

neil

D. Hayes

06-11-2009, 05:28 PM

I'm no where near as good as most of you but I take the training class every chance I can get. I've taken it at least 5 times in the last 3 years since moving to kansas.

The other night there was a guy on our skywarn ham frequency making reports of wall clouds in my area yet there were no super cells even in the state yet. The skywarn controller had to shut the guy down telling him to take one of the many skywarn training classes. Funny this is the guy doing the reporting said his friend sitting next to him was a trained skywarn spotter.

yea.

Tim Shriver

11-01-2009, 10:05 AM

A thought to relate...

My thought is, It's up to the NWS to up the standards, SKYWARN and others will NOT collapse, but only get stronger. Fewer, maybe, but then we've all heard, quality not quantity.

just a thought...

neil

While I agree that the NWS should up the standards on spotters I do not
think we will see that to much of an extent. Most WFO's do not have
the extra dollars in their budgets to do more then they are now.

What I would like to see is the NWS tighten up on spotter groups.
This would allow the NWS to work with fewer people one on one and
motivate the spotter groups to further their members education and
to enforce higher standards.

Question: Does your spotter group "Activate" only when a warning is issued?
If so are they really doing the best job possible?

I see so many groups that wait until a warning is issued. To me
this is way to late in the ballgame. Should they
not be ahead of the game? Checking out cells that could go severe warned?

This comes down to more education. It takes more training on radar
and field observation skills to be this proactive. It also takes a well planned
out and practiced communications protocol.

We need to fill in the gaps between radar sweeps. To be aware of
the weather enough and educated enough to identify, select and act upon cells that need to have a warning issued or not issued.

We must be able to be the cause of the warning and
also be able to let the WFO know that a cell is not producing server weather.
Preventing an unneeded warning is just as important. To do that
you must be educated, in place and ready before a warning is issued.

No report is better then a bad report.

Just something to think over...

Tim

Rich Long

11-03-2009, 12:18 AM

I lead a small group of city officials and our groups leadership to our local National Weather Service office (OHX) this morning and one of the topics we discussed was ways they could help make our training better. One thing i asked for was a class in radar interpretation. The WCM had a class made up for that and will be presenting it to our group in late January.

Sometimes the extra training is there but you just have to ask.

John Wetter

11-03-2009, 01:35 AM

rdale

11-03-2009, 07:05 AM

I always find it interesting that radar interpretation is requested so much. How does this help with looking at clouds though?

It might be more for the at-home spotters, who chime in on the net with "I just saw The Weather Channel and they are showing red over me, might be a tornado" or "GRLevel3 is showing a TVS over Jonestown, so I'm telling the fire department to sound the sirens".

I'm only 1/4th joking.

Greg Stumpf

11-03-2009, 08:03 AM

I always find it interesting that radar interpretation is requested so much. How does this help with looking at clouds though?
With so many spotters equipped with mobile internet, I think integrating visual observations with radar, both for daytime and nighttime spotting, should be the current framework for storm spotting training. A lot of the false wall cloud and funnel reports might be reduced if those reports could be related to their relative position in the overall structure of the storm, which is easier to interpret given radar data.

Rich Long

11-03-2009, 01:00 PM

We requested it because our group is tasked with responding with the fire department on large incidents, Setting off tornado sirens, providing weather information for large public events, etc. All of our spotters report to a central point and they are the operators who need to understand the radar. Our city asks a lot and funds us so we look for the best training we can get.

Tim Shriver

11-03-2009, 02:30 PM

I always find it interesting that radar interpretation is requested so much. How does this help with looking at clouds though? Or, without doing this, how do you avoid becoming too technology centered?

Just thoughts.

The reason might be is they wish to know more. To better understand
and be able to use all the tools available.

We try to link what the spotter/chaser sees in the field with
what it might appear like on the radar.

Having an understanding of and using both together is better then
using one mode alone.

Radar is sort like a fish finder. It indicates where the items
of interest are/were.

It then depends on your skills as an angler to haul in the big one.

Tim

Todd Krause

11-03-2009, 07:25 PM

IMO, radar info is one of those "nice to have" topics as part of the spotter class, but in a two hour class, time is at a premium, and most spotters have told me that they benefit more from spending the time learning/reviewing the basics of storm structure and what the important clouds look like. For many of them, it's the only time they'll see this stuff for an entire year. If there are groups that want more info than the basics, we're happy to provide it.

Todd

rdale

11-03-2009, 07:45 PM

I do radar interp classes for spotters and EM's - but it's always separate from the NWS training. There's just too much to cram in to make it worthwhile...

Rich Long

11-03-2009, 08:06 PM

Rdale

I agree completly and right now that is the plan. If a member wants to work in the trailer he/she needs additional training.

Shane Adams

11-03-2009, 11:07 PM

With so many spotters equipped with mobile internet, I think integrating visual observations with radar, both for daytime and nighttime spotting, should be the current framework for storm spotting training. A lot of the false wall cloud and funnel reports might be reduced if those reports could be related to their relative position in the overall structure of the storm, which is easier to interpret given radar data.

That sounds great on paper, but many spotters struggle with the simplicity of visual observation/identification (despite "training") in the field. Seems unrealistic IMO to expect they could grasp the complexities of radar interpretation. I've sat in many chats watching people prediciting and calling out situations they think will be happening soon or are happening based on their radar observations. Anything not perfectly round is a hook echo, and every garden variety storm with mid-level rotation "should be tornado warned."

I disagree that spotter training should encourage radar watching. I think anything that takes focus away from learning the visual clues/observations in and around severe storms is a deterrent. It's obvious IMO there are enough issues with spotters understanding the visuals as is, without the added distraction of radar.