NWS Des Moines: Assessment on Parkersburg EF5 tornado
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:16 pm
I have just found and they have released their service assessment on the tornado on May 25, 2008. It is clear that they admitted some mistakes were made (although I think they weren't major issues).
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/dmx/Park ... tfinal.pdf
My opinion on the issues:
1) Spelling and grammar can sometimes be an issue, but at such speed they had to work with so much pressure, I can understand why there were mistakes.
2) I agree they should have gone with 15% hatched (moderate risk) and stuck with it. (High risk was probably not warranted that day since the activity wasn't widespread enough)
3) That happens always in all events.
4) Makes sense, more prominently known points (i.e. towns) should be used most of the time.
5) That is very confusing. If they wanted to include it, say the NE Iowa watch first then the watch "for the remainder of Iowa".
6) The public should become more aware of those terms. Wedge tornado does not necessarily mean violent, but in this case "violent tornado" would have been more appropriate.
7) Agreed.
8) Not sure if that would have made a difference there. Given the magnitude, a co-ordinator would have been a good idea, but the day started as a slight risk so those can be tough to arrange.
9) Those mistakes happen, and I agree the warning should have come out a bit sooner.
10) Given the amount of activity over those few weeks, that is understandable. Only hiring new temporary staff could prevent it - and the economy won't let that happen.
11) They should definitely be more prepared for such, I agree.
12) Of course we won't know since all the reports were unofficial. A town hit by an EF5 tornado will surely be inaccessible at first.
13) A computer program (even Google Earth) would help out there.
14) It was up to the offices. I guess Des Moines doesn't like using the term? That term can too easily be abused. But in this case if the evidence was clear, go ahead and declare a tornado emergency.
15) Agreed.
16) Yes I agree, that made it more difficult. After all, they did not have time to research!
17) Watches should clearly say PDS, I agree. (But too much differential means they could get complacent when a normal watch is issued.)
18) Agreed, but that is beyond the NWS's control.
19) Definitely helps to have backups available, especially during a high-end event.
20) Yes it was slow but understandable due to potential debate.
21) Why wait until news conferences? Why not call it on the scene?
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/dmx/Park ... tfinal.pdf
My opinion on the issues:
1) Spelling and grammar can sometimes be an issue, but at such speed they had to work with so much pressure, I can understand why there were mistakes.
2) I agree they should have gone with 15% hatched (moderate risk) and stuck with it. (High risk was probably not warranted that day since the activity wasn't widespread enough)
3) That happens always in all events.
4) Makes sense, more prominently known points (i.e. towns) should be used most of the time.
5) That is very confusing. If they wanted to include it, say the NE Iowa watch first then the watch "for the remainder of Iowa".
6) The public should become more aware of those terms. Wedge tornado does not necessarily mean violent, but in this case "violent tornado" would have been more appropriate.
7) Agreed.
8) Not sure if that would have made a difference there. Given the magnitude, a co-ordinator would have been a good idea, but the day started as a slight risk so those can be tough to arrange.
9) Those mistakes happen, and I agree the warning should have come out a bit sooner.
10) Given the amount of activity over those few weeks, that is understandable. Only hiring new temporary staff could prevent it - and the economy won't let that happen.
11) They should definitely be more prepared for such, I agree.
12) Of course we won't know since all the reports were unofficial. A town hit by an EF5 tornado will surely be inaccessible at first.
13) A computer program (even Google Earth) would help out there.
14) It was up to the offices. I guess Des Moines doesn't like using the term? That term can too easily be abused. But in this case if the evidence was clear, go ahead and declare a tornado emergency.
15) Agreed.
16) Yes I agree, that made it more difficult. After all, they did not have time to research!
17) Watches should clearly say PDS, I agree. (But too much differential means they could get complacent when a normal watch is issued.)
18) Agreed, but that is beyond the NWS's control.
19) Definitely helps to have backups available, especially during a high-end event.
20) Yes it was slow but understandable due to potential debate.
21) Why wait until news conferences? Why not call it on the scene?