🚀 go-pugleaf

Sorry, folks, for the long post.  But, this is an important topic that has been
raised!

>      Sam Barricklow wrote:
>
> Currently, most SKYWARN organizations, especially those organized under
> RACES, are under either county or city control.  In many cases, such as
> with Dallas County RACES, the focus of the group is within the county.
> Typically, SKYWARN nets are shut down when storm activity moves out of
> Dallas County into the surrounding rural counties.  (There are a few
> dedicated spotters from Dallas County who will track stronger storms
> outside of the county.)
>
> (Snip). . .
>
> As a result of these factors, it is time to consider a basic
> reorganization of RACES and SKYWARN, changing from a local organization
> controlled by a city or county government to a regional organization.
> The governmental focus of responsibility should be either the National
> Weather Service Forecast Office (NWSFO) with warning responsibility for
> the location or a state controlled multi-county organization that
> parallels NWSFO responsibility.
>
> (Snip). . .
>
> Comments?

> Allan Moller wrote:

>      (Big Snip). . .Second, it may be difficult, because of local politics,
> to develop
>      spotter nets on a regional basis.  The politics of the current city
>      and/or county spotter nets can be difficult enough to deal with!
>      Trying to pull many spotters together from varying areas could be a
>      major problem.  However, if people can make it work, so be it!
>
>      (Snip). . .
>      Finally, the NWS likes Amateur Radio spotters because of their
>      superior communications systems.  The amateur frequencies allow
>      weather-trained Amateurs to talk efficiently to each other and to the
>      net controller, so that initial tornado reports can be confirmed (or
>      denied) by others.

Kim Walker's thoughts:

This is a very interesting subject to come up on the list.  As a local D/FW
spotter (well, local as in Kaufman County), I would like to add some thoughts
and comments.

I have often wondered why there is not a more concerted effort on the part of
current RACES organizations to provide multi-county coverage during severe
weather events.  The only response I have ever received from those whom I dared
ask is that "politics" will never let that happen.  I have to just get a little
emotional here, folks--albeit unprofessional:

     There should be no "politics" when it comes to the business of providing
important,
     possibly live/property saving information for those who live in and near
our
     neighborhoods.  PERIOD.

Kaufman County RACES is currently not very active, even with training nets.
The lack of severe weather is the probably cause of this.  But, when conditions
warrant, we provide communications for and spot for the NWS into Van Zandt
County.  Often, we would like to feel welcome to communicate back to the NWS
through the 146.880 machine in Dallas.  But, we are often met with indifference
and the feeling that we are interfering when we attempt to do just that.  Is
this "politics" in motion?  Probably.

When storms develop in "this area," they develop mostly near the Palo
Pinto/Parker County area (in terms of those that will be going through the
metroplex), and move through very rapidly.  For any particular community, the
severe weather begins and ends within two hours.  It makes perfect sense to
have a regional effort for RACES/ARES, or some other entity willing to make the
effort, for the provision of emergency communications and tracking severe
weather.

I don't know how many times a RACES unit from Tarrant Cty. has attempted to
enter a Dallas RACES net to report the characteristics of a storm that has been
being tracked, or even to provide a report from the fringe of the county--and
Dallas RACES has not allowed this to happen.  We here in Kaufman County hang on
the edge of our seats to hear that report so we will have a better idea of what
we are facing.

These comments are not meant to be inflammatory but simply to point out part of
the reasons why I believe Sam and Alan are right.  This area needs to have a
much better communication method and procedures for effective surveillance of
severe weather.  I am not the one to suggest how this might be done, at least
not in this forum.  But I, for one, am perfectly willing and eager to work with
others in making this happen.  The idea of being able to learn about weather,
participate with others during severe weather and to have a reason to be mobile
(I hate staying at my house when severe weather is nigh) was the sole reason
for my making the effort to "get into" HAM radio.

Sam, you've sort of taken the ball and bounced it.  I would love NOT to see
this die.  What can we do?  Alan, you made the implication that the NWS would
see this as a favorable evolution.  It is the NWS that we are here for and who
we work with.  What would the NWS like to see in terms of broad-spectrum
coverage?  There are ways that relays of communications could be provided
probably in the entire area you serve--if HAMs would stay on frequencies long
enough for that to happen!

I am excited now!  Let's keep this going.

Kim Walker - W5TIT

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.