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

[Dr. Daniel L. Goltz]

   Thanks for your comments.  Under the circumstances, "water levels  
normal", "no run off", "no mudslides" etc. were very useful reports.  
They helped to determing the scope and location of the problems we  
were dealing with.  I think it is nearly impossible to give a blanket  
statement of what is appropriate to report for any given event. It is  
up to net control or the EOC to help provide guidance to the people in  
the field as to what to report at any given time.  At the EOC we asked  
LSE WX what they wanted us to report to them so as not to over burden  
them with unwanted reports. 

   Thanks to all for participating.

   Dan, WK0W

   Quoting James Jarvis <jj at aprsworld.com>:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WARC mailing list
> WARC at lists.w0ne.org
> http://lists.w0ne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/warc

   Dr. Daniel L. Goltz
274 E. 3rd St.
Winona, MN 55987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.w0ne.org/pipermail/warc/attachments/20080609/c12d6a0f/attachment-0001.htm