🚀 go-pugleaf

It is with great interest that I have been reading all the recent comment
about SKYWARN, the perceptions of what it is and how it fits into the
programs of others like Emergency Management, Amateur Radio Emergency
Service (ARES), Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES), REACT,
civilian spotters, etc etc.

As background, I have been involved in SKYWARN in the Chicago Area since
1967.  We didn't hang that title on it at the time, but somewhere it worked
its way in.  According to Joe Galway, after the storms of Palm Sunday 1965
when many were killed in spite of relatively good performance of the Weather
Bureau in providing warnings, a survey team studied what could be done to
improve the situation.  Mainly they recommended a need for better radar
information disseminated in a more efficient manner and to get the public to
better realize that just knowing about a warning is not enough.
Ground-truth spotters were also identified as an important part of the
system.  The need for action to minimize injury or death was also a concept
to engrain in the minds of the vulnerable.  The outcome of this study
resulted in what they called SKYWARN.

Also, since 1980 I have been the Section Emergency Coordinator for the
Illinois Section.  Like other locales, there is a widely varying response to
the ARES program across the state consisting of 102 counties.  Just as
varied are the emergency management agencies throughout the state.   And our
state emergency management is probably about as varied amongst the other
40-plus as exists in these forementioned categories.  It seems to spell one
principle to be applied:  What works in one area will not necessarily work
in another, nor will it be the optimum for many others.

Not only are there areal and agency differences, these attributes do not
stand still.  An agency with a deadbeat might change personnel and change
the whole picture.  The amount of budget given an agency will surely have an
effect on its programs.  Events often affect the budget.  Disasters help
future budget dolars.  Some full-time staffed agencies have a tendency to
get comfortable and stagnate and only wish to have disasters and emergencies
occur between 8 and 5 on weekdays, and some don't work that way.  Meanwhile
often highly-volunteer agencies respond with a vigor that is beyond belief.
Sometimes the expertise of the aggregate of the volunteers is something that
fully paid agencies could only hope to afford.  Smart full-time agencies
recognize this and incorporate these people as unpaid employees, ala
California Auxiliary Communication Service.  Taking any ham to only operate
a radio on "ham" frequencies is defined as shortsightedness!

And, oh yes, all NWS WCMs are not created equally, nor do they evolve
equally.  The interaction between groups is varied depending upon
relationships AND POLITICS.  NWS is sometimes forced to be a participant in
a relationship because the possible consequences of hurting the feelings of
some emergency manager or other local official because of a bruised ego or
other problem.

So there is no one who can tell anyone else exactly what to do.  But there
are no doubt principles to be followed and success stories from all walks of
emergency preparedness life that can be components to be incorporated into
programs on a custom basis.   Therefore it is a learning process to listen
to what everyone has to say and draw some conclusions as to what has the
most worth locally, in your own environment.

One thing that is bothersome to me is the use of the acronym RACES.  RACES
is a sub-part of the FCC Part 97 rules and from there seems to get used in a
number of ways that implies officialdom while there seems to be application
of the term to "RACES Groups" that are not a part of some governmental
emergency management (I think they still say Civil Defense in the FCC Rules)
organization.  So without explanation, it is difficult to really know what
is meant by a RACES operation in any particular location as its
interpretation has many definitions, apparently.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Bear with me, a little more, if you might, for a little backgound
information that might provide a little better insight into my view.

Although there may be some disagreement, I have described SKYWARN as a
component of the "Total Severe Weather Warning System".  It is a nationwide
program of the National Weather Service (NWS) promoting the identification,
evaluation and reporting of dangerous weather.

The success of the "Total Severe Weather Warning System" depends highly upon
everyone participating to see that all steps function rapidly and
efficiently.  From the time severe of damaging weather is determined likely;
then observed; reported to the NWS as well as governmental agencies and
other SKYWARN participants; evaluated at the NWS and a warning prepared and
disseminated, if appropriate; broadcast by the media; and the resultant
damage reported by observers or authorities, all must strive to do their
job.  It can be very boring at times for observers and hectic for those at
the NWS, but severe weather is a highly perishable commodity abd must be
handled accordingly.

A utopian Severe Weather Warning System would consist of numerous people,
generally referred to as severe weather spotters, having adequate
communications capability.  They would be located such that the first signs
of developing severe weather would be promptly reported to the National
Weather Service causing a warning to be issued and disseminated.
Appropriate government agencies would sound any existing warning systems as
a result of information from the NWS or spotters.  Upon being warned,
everyone in the path would perceive the danger and take appropriate
pre-planned action to protect themselves from the effects of the storm.

In actuality, it doesn't always work that way.  There's generally a shortage
of people in the right spot, qualified to provide the information.  Even if
there were, the public doesn't always respond in a perfect manner; most have
not given it serious thought.

Thusly, almost everyone in an area threatened by severe weather should be
involved, if not as a part of the observation/warning system, as a recipient
of warning information who should be taking protective action.  Warnings,
once issued, are generally widely disseminated by radio/TV media and various
systems on cable television, including the Weather Channel.  More important
to SKYWARN are communication capabilities that facilitate the communication
of spotters' weather observations.
- - - - - - - - -

Let me comment about the Chicago area and take liberty to modify Matt
Janusauskas' view of its makeup.  Matt has been very functional and a
positive participant in the program from Kankakee County, one of the
counties in the Chicago CWA.  I do not wish to detract from that.  It's a
matter of longevity and familiarity with history.  I don't believe Matt was
yet born when I first got involved, and that doesn't make him the least bit
bad.

BUT-  I would start by saying "under the direction of the NWS office in
Chicago and administered by our District Emergency Coordinator a
multi-county organization was formed after a devastating tornado struck our
area in 1990.  There are 13 counties that participate in the system" is not
completely factual.  Like many NWS offices, the WCM has inherited what is a
history of support (or lack thereof) for their severe weather program.
District Emergency Coordinator is a phrase that infers a part of the ARRL
organization.  There is NO District Emergency Coordinator for the counties
that are in the Chicago CWA.  Incidentally, the CWA also includes 5 Indiana
counties.

When I got involved in late 1967, after the Oak Lawn tornado of April, the
main support for the Chicago Weather Bureau (the forecast office was really
in Chicago at the U of Chicago at that time) was from a group of dedicated
people who were associated with Cook County Civil Defense.  Probably this
operation through RACES over Amateur Radio was the greatest public service
the agency provided.  The rest was mired in politics.  Let is just be said
that their busiest time was just prior to elections.  But the severe weather
operation provided a combination of radioteletype weather products and a
voice net all operated on the same RACES channel.  Maybe it was primitive,
but it really worked.  Various civil defense agencies operated under the
pre-1977/Docket 19723 RACES rules.  It was THE system.

After the rules change and the demise of the Cook County Civil Defense
Commission due to some "difficulties", the  "CD" responsibilities were
inherited by the sheriff.  He delegated these to one of his chiefs who said
that all of this weather system was no longer needed because his police
would just put out the information on the police "point-to-point" (155.37
MHz) and their responsibility was complete.  Thus the remains, including the
radioteletype operation,  continued without support from the county.  In
fact, a few individuals, including myself, carried on from there.

In the early 80s a group of interested people, most holding Amateur Radio
licenses and some in "CD" (or as now called Emergency Services and Disaster
Agency - ESDA) planned on how to set up a better communications system.  A
system calling for local nets reporting to a liaison network first using a
220 MHz repeater was designed.  Local nets could mean anything from plain
old repeater or simplex operations of hams, ESDA with Amateur Radio operator
capability and even inviting any REACT or CB group that had Amateur Radio
capabilities amongst their membership.  This liaison network was improved
over the years as one repeater system of the Commonwealth Edison Employees
Amateur Radio Society (CEEARS) was added, then the FISHFAR system on 442 MHz
with high-grade commercial equipment and a wide-area coverage, and finally
another CEEARS repeater that provided coverage to a good part of the Chicago
CWA.  Subsequent to its origin, in the mid-80s this group became the Chicago
Area Skywarn Assn (CASA).  Its purpose was to provide a forum for discussion
of severe weather operations and promote an improved SKYWARN system in the
area.

The participation in SKYWARN activities by ESDAs, except mainly the
volunteer local agencies, in general, was pathetic, with a few exceptions.
It was a few months after the Plainfield Tornado when one county emergency
manager decided that he would like to be in charge of everything and set up
the Multi-County Severe Weather Warning System, centered on his county in
suburban Chicagoland.  Purportedly this network was devised by his Office of
Emergency Management, the College of DuPage and the Chicago National Weather
Service Forecast Office.  The system funnels information into this one
county for relay to the NWS.  There was an insistance that CASA sign on to
the agreement that stated that personnel and other resources would be
provided, but CASA would not sign on because it was an association of
individuals; there was no control of these individuals and resources by the
association.  There was a perception by this county emergency manager that
the NOAA Weather Wire system that provided weather information and the
accumulated communications systems were under the control of CASA --- and
that this Multi-County system would then control all the Amateur Radio
SKYWARN operations in the area.  It was a gross misassumption.  This
director trotted off and indicated that no further information on what the
multi-county was doing would be furnished to CASA since CASA would not sign
on and therefore multi-county could save postage by not providing any
mailing to CASA.

As a result, the Chicago area has two independent operations.  The
Multi-county system includes 15 Illinois counties.  It includes most of the
Illinois CWA except for Ford, Livingston and Iroquois.  The Amateur Radio
SKYWARN operations under an independent structure covers the Chicago CWA for
the most part, but finds that there is a lack of interface activity (by
choice of those in the counties) in the same three Illinois counties and
Jasper, Newton and Porter counties in Indiana.  So support of severe weather
operations ends if just those six counties are involved, unless and until
someone is there to talk with.

The focal point of the Amateur Radio net is at the Melrose Park Emergency
Services-Public Safety Emergency Communications Center (ECC).  Simultaneous
transmission on the 4 repeater systems is possible and the liaison net is
coordinated from there.  The NOAA Weather Wire (via satellite) is located
there and we also have DTN.  Cable TV monitoring The Weather Channel is also
available.

When there is a threat of severe weather (like a watch being issued) there
is discussion with the Lead Forecaster at the NWS to determnine if an
operator is required at the NWS.  If so, one whose capabilities fit into
that environment will report.  It is virtually impossible to completely
coordinate this system from NWS.  Chicago was one of the early offices to
move to a new building and it was one of a small number where the generator
was included within the building and space was at more of a premium than
others.  The only place to put the Amateur Radio equipment was about 25 feet
from the severe weather desk.  If the volume was turned up loud enough to
hear all the time it would disturb the operations.  It was not nearly as
convenient as the setup at the old Rosemont office.

The main dedication of the Amateur Radio group is to provide support to the
Chicago Nexrad Weather Forecast Office while providing the best possible
dissemination of spotter information amongst any interested groups or
individuals.  Emergency management agencies are included in this invitation.
Yes we still have some prime responsibilities to our "landlord", the Village
of Melrose Park IL and what can be done to help the village more efficiently
carry out its responsibilities to the public regarding severe weather (and
other matters).  But the idea is to transfer information, not try to build
an empire or to be lead to activity based upon what kind of resume or ego
can be built up.


TODD SHERMAN's three organizational diagrams tell a story.  It's quite
obvious that nrs 2 and 3 are pathetic.  That's why as SEC I try to beat down
any  unhealthy pattern of that sort.  That's why as SEC I have not tried to
disturb a system in the Chicago area that had its origins before ARES had
any fingers in it and although based on the capabilities of RACES rules was
never a RACES dominated system as some seem to experience.  And it provided
a capability to those outside the county as a courtesy/service.
Fortunately, in one sense, the Cook County agency leadership never really
understood what we were doing and as a result the weather operation remained
efficient and undominated by bureaucracy and politics.  I can easily see
where government dominated operations can become bogged down by their own
weight.

Although it is difficult for government to set up (justify) communications
systems just for SKYWARN, that provide communications over an area as large
as a future Weather Forecast Office (WFO) area, this can be accomplished
more easily with Amateur Radio systems that have wide coverage or are
linked.  The "officials" are reluctant to accept that unless they can be in
control.

KEVIN HEYBOER makes some statements with which I wish to differ.  I don't
believe that "Ham operators who participate in any Skywarn program, whether
they realize it or not, operate within the auspices of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between ARRL (ie, ARES) and the NWS."  It looks to me
like the MOU focuses on members of the Field Organization (ie ARES).  Many
participants are not ARES members.  You do not have to be an ARRL member to
be in ARES, but the appointed EC must hold that membership.  In some areas
history may dictate that ARES has not been proactive in creating that
relationship or that it is politically unfeasible.  Other areas may find
that ARES is the cement that holds it all together -- or maybe there's a
hybrid.

He mentions that their EM does not issue warnings.  I would hope not.  Maybe
local EM may alert the public to immediate danger, usually the result of a
warning issued by the NWS -- but sometimes on the basis of an event that is
not prognosticated from radar or other means, but of a credible sighting by
a reliable person.  NWS should be the ONLY source of WARNINGS.

I would strongly agree with his statement, "The main point is that it really
doesn't matter who is running your local Skywarn program so long as it
works!"
- - - - - - - -

How is it when there are two systems?  Well, if you partake in both, in a
sense, you'll always be with the "first one".  There are times when the
Multi-County is not immediately up when severe weather occurs and there are
times the Amateur Radio net is a bit slow.  The latter should be improved
when I finish my backup station at home where I can monitor the situation
and not just spend hours and hours at the ECC just in case.  And if at home
in the middle of the night it can be activated in a moment.

Although there are claims about all the 3000 spotters that have been trained
by the MultiCounty Skywarn, I doubt if the participation rate on a regular
basis is very large.  The first year there were many false reports as too
many people after being trained are hungry to report their first tornado and
don't seem to adequately analyze what they see before reporting it.  In that
number, I am sure, are many governmental employees.  I have serious doubts
as to whether they will be participants unless forced.  I bet many will be
good with excuses why they can not participate.

The Multi-County focal county got the lead on authorization for the only
frequency made available by the Reserve for EMWIN.  Their commitment was so
great that after placing it on the air it took only 3 months to get a usable
signal after finding that they had to transmit the whole bandwidth of the
1200 baud modulator.  It didn't matter that it was unusable, it was the
symbolism of having EMWIN that was important.

There are reasons why many chose not to be a part of the Multi-County and it
leaves a number of Amateur Radio operators who will participate in the other
nets.  For serious events it is possible to speak directly with someone at
the NWS.  Two-way communication is available to not only allow reports to
flow to the NWS but to have the NWS request information from specific areas
and have the inquiry be transmitted in a very timely manner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sorry for the length -- but the recent series of transmittals has prompted
this commentary.  Everyone may not agree, but I am sure I am right in saying
that no one will every "organize" the severe weather program so that it will
be run universally and identically across the country.  Some would wish to
do it differently just for that reason.

Bob Hajek  W9QBH
Asst Director-Melrose Park IL Emergency Svcs/Public Safety
Severe weather system participant since 1967

===========================================================================T
he comments are my own opinions and not necessarily those of organizations
with which I am associated!
===========================================================================

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
To unsubscribe from SKYWARN send e-mail to LISTSERV@PO.UIUC.EDU with
"unsub skywarn" in the body of your message.  If you need help or more
information on the SKYWARN discussion group write to chris@siu.edu or
see http://www.inlink.com/~landmb/intro.html.  For more information
on SKYWARN activities across the country visit http://www.skywarn.com
and http://www.winternet.com/~daveej.