🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert P Dale <rdale@NORDEN1.COM> wrote..

>And one point that has been avoided so far... There is absolutely NO way
>that an hour or two of training per year gives the common spotter all the
>knowledge he needs. So when I hear "It HAS to be a valid report, he was at
>the training session" I tend to get sick. Chicago has an eight hour session
>involving all aspects of severe weather spotting -- the best I've ever been
>to, and I drive 5 hours each way every year just to attend -- but just in
>quick conversations with people afterwards it either flies over many of
>their heads or they don't pay attention for that long. So when people "avoid
>attending Skywarn sessions" I imagine they get tired of seeing the same
>slide set or "get under the girders" video year after year. That's the real
>problem -- giving people the knowledge that they need, but in a way that
>they are able to listen. I don't know how many times Cleveland shows the
>NCSA video of a supercell wind flow, and it does absolutely nothing except
>confuse people and make them say "nice graphics."

Rob hit on some important points.  How much training is too much?  --or more
appropriately how little is too little?  First, let me say that I like the
large presentation training format that Chicago uses.  The large crowd makes
the training an event, in and of itself, and that keeps attentions higher.
One problem I see, however, is the general organization of many training
classes.  They're often too basic or too complicated.  On the one hand,
spotting is a pretty basic function.  You watch the sky, you look for the
tornado or reportable criteria, and you report it.  Simple!  I know a lot
of people who think a 15 minute presentation (like a short in-service
training seminar for cops) is sufficient.  Here, people basically say
"tell me what I need to know and let me get out of here".  On the opposite
end of the spectrum, some people think that 8 hours of training doesn't even
scratch the surface.  They believe that spotters really need to be
meteorologists in order to "fully understand" what they are looking at.
Presentations put on by these kinds of people tend to go on and on and
feature bandwagons of speakers.  The question is though, are the spotters
being presented with materials and hearing speakers that
are 1) understandable, and 2) directly related to spotting?

Many times long-format classes tend to be dog and pony shows.  Sure,
there's lots of video to watch and it's a fun time, but what are the
students actually learning?  Some classes look as if they were thrown
together with no more thought about content than just trying to come up
with a who's who list of impressive speakers.  But are these speakers
addressing issues truly relevant to spotting or are they just giving
interesting weather presentations?  Trainers (be they NWS or emergency
managers) need to analyze what kind of problems are happening in their
areas (be that with the actual observation/reports or the relaying of the
reports) and tailor the training to address these problems.  While it's
OK to have people speak about the latest theories of tornadogenis and
show fresh examples of recent storms, the material should *directly* tie
in with what spotters *need* to know to do their jobs.  Long talks about
esoteric theories on tornado formation, doppler radar signatures, or
detailed descriptions of how ham radio communication systems work is fine
at an AMS severe storms conference or at Tornado Symposium but this kind
of material has no valid place in a spotter class.  In fact, this kind of
material usually bores the pants off of most people.  An 8-hour class
doesn't necessarily train spotters any better than a 2-hour class.  The value
of the class is not how long it lasts or how many speakers attend but whether
spotters learn something they can use in the field or learn something that
may save their life or learn something that will dramatically cut down on
false reports.

The best training classes are those that start with the premise that
spotter-trainees know nothing and then go on to discuss *all* the areas
they need to know to be self-sufficient.  These classes mix in some new
materials each year and new presentors from time to time to keep the
"old crowd" happy but they don't go straying off into areas that do not
directly relate to the spotting function.   True, no single class is going
to make a spotter an expert.  The most beneficial training comes from
actual field experience under the supervision of other spotters (who know
what they are talking about).  But my point is spotting classes should be
packed with as much *useful* information as possible.  Save the fluff for
the take-home materials.

To Paul Sirvatka and Gilbert Sebenste:

Have you guys considered mass-duplicating a supplemental training videotape
that cold be given to spotters who attend your Multi-County classes?

..Chris..
*====================================================================*
Chris Hayes Novy - WA9V   Internet: chris@siu.edu
Southern Illinois Univ.             chris@lib.siu.edu
Systems Administration       Phone: (618) 453-1683 (work)
Morris Library                      (618) 457-6149 (home)
Carbondale, IL 62901-6632      FAX: (618) 453-3440
*====================================================================*