[Fwd: [WARC] criticism of skywarn net saturady june 7, 2008]

[James Jarvis]

I don't think the whole net on Saturday was dedicated to Skywarn. Stream 
level reporting and other functions was mostly at the request of Winona 
County Emergency Management, not NWS. Relaying reports of where it is 
raining and what streams are at normal levels IS useful to emergency 
management. I think they would much rather have continuing reports that 
the stream is rising rather than one report that the stream has 
overflowed its banks and washed away a road. The EOC is in a basement 
and really appreciates some general information on what is going on 
outside. If there is bandwidth available, it isn't bad to use it. 
Obviously we need to be careful not to make it impossible for someone to 
get in, but I didn't see that happening at all on Saturday.

 From those that either haven't been out in the field with Skywarn much, 
or for those that weren't on all day - something to fight the boredom 
and stay in communications is useful. Keeping people engaged and in 
communications is worthwhile. Otherwise the NCS will be querying them to 
see if they are still there. And they might not be, since they could 
have dropped into an area with no coverage and not even known it.

-Jim


Len Litvan wrote:
> I was unable to hear much of Phil's comments Sunday night as I bouncing 
> around between three 146.640, 146.970, 146.835 & Windows Messenger 
> Live.  With regard to the comment below about too much chatter, that was 
> my impression also during the portions of the net I could hear.
> 
> In general, there were a number of reports which were "non-essential" 
> information--not a reportable condition as per Skywarn training.  Two of 
> these reports were mine!  Others included things like, "the water level 
> is normal", "no run-off", "I see blue sky", "pea-sized hail", and other 
> non-threatening conditions.
> 
> I had to wait for 8 - 10 minutes to make one of my own "non-critical" 
> reports because there were no breaks in the chatter on the repeater.  If 
> I had a true critical condition to report, I could have broken in 
> possibly, but net control was trying to confirm a spotter's position and 
> make an adjustment at the time.  I waited.  But there were other times 
> when the repeater seemed to be busy continuously for extended periods 
> with non-critical communications.
> 
> So I learned the importance of keeping my mic closed unless I have a 
> truly reportable condition per the Skywarn training or other direction 
> from net control.
> 
> I do have some feedback for individual stations and I plan to provide it 
> individually and personally.
> 
> We all want to help so much!  That's a good thing, but we have to learn 
> to control our instinct and desire to over-contribute (me included).
> 
> Sincerely & 73,
> Len KC0RSX
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [WARC] criticism of skywarn net saturady june 7, 2008
> Date:     Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:28:30 -0500
> From:     Clare Jarvis <clarej at hbci.com>
> Reply-To:     Winona Amateur Radio Club general discussion 
> <warc at lists.w0ne.org>
> To:     Winona Amateur Radio Club general discussion <warc at lists.w0ne.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Phil,
> 
> 
> I do not think your criticism tonight was just or appropriate.
> 
> The useable part in the criticism was "there is too much chatter."  ....
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WARC mailing list
> WARC at lists.w0ne.org
> http://lists.w0ne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/warc