Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,540
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    clydes6
    Newest Member
    clydes6
    Joined

Dec. 10-11 Severe Weather


Indystorm
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Buckeye05 said:

The lead surveyor for LZK Vilonia survey was a guy named John Robinson, and he has since retired, so I don't think Cavanaugh would have much to say about it. Plus, LZK has caught a ridiculous amount of flak over the years from angry weather geeks bashing and criticizing them over that rating. I'm sure that any email containing the words "Vilonia" that shows up in an inbox at that particular WFO, is gonna go right into the deleted folder.

But anyway, it would be more productive talking to a brick wall than it would be talking to Robinson about this, as he has strongly insinuated in interviews that he does not believe in applying EF5 ratings to houses. It's suspected by some that the botched results of the Vilonia survey occurred as a result of Robinson perpetuating his highly skewed interpretation of the EF scale into actual practice. I will DM and give you a run-down of that whole debacle, as it seems you are just now learning about the infamous Vilonia survey. It's truly astonishing how bad they failed at documenting the first true instance of EF5 damage within the state of Arkansas.

I did not know John personally. There is a John Robinson in NWSHQ in the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations but I guess he is not the same person. I bet if everyone emailed this John he would wonder what the hell is going on.

I know Dennis Cavanaugh. He is a good guy. It might be better to email him directly than going through the "contact us" link. Even though he wasn't the WCM at the time he might answer your questions. Going thru the "contact us" link would be a "challenge" since you don't know who will be looking at that email. You can email Jim Reynolds the MIC there. However...I'll leave it at that.

Seriously...even though we might have gotten off on the wrong foot I wish I could help. The previous MIC I knew well and was loved/liked by everyone...but Steve passed back in 2018. He would have answered your questions without hesitation.

If you want stuff changed contact Tanya Fransen. She is the MIC in the Glasgow office but she is awesome. She has influence in the NWS and the AMS. She is great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WVU said:

I did not know John personally. There is a John Robinson in NWSHQ in the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations but I guess he is not the same person. I bet if everyone emailed this John he would wonder what the hell is going on.

I know Dennis Cavanaugh. He is a good guy. It might be better to email him directly than going through the "contact us" link. Even though he wasn't the WCM at the time he might answer your questions. Going thru the "contact us" link would be a "challenge" since you don't know who will be looking at that email. You can email Jim Reynolds the MIC there. However...I'll leave it at that.

Seriously...even though we might have gotten off on the wrong foot I wish I could help. The previous MIC I knew well and was loved/liked by everyone...but Steve passed back in 2018. He would have answered your questions without hesitation.

If you want stuff changed contact Tanya Fransen. She is the MIC in the Glasgow office but she is awesome. She has influence in the NWS and the AMS. She is great.

Please check your DMs. I sent you some important stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Buckeye05 said:

Please check your DMs. I sent you some important stuff.

I just saw it. Give me a couple of days to read it closely. It's 2 am and everything is blurry. After I look it over closely I'll DM you back. When I have a chance to really look it over and if I agree with you I will have no problem messaging Tim and sending him the info. They do reanalyze hurricanes occasionally later...I don't see why they wouldn't reanalyze surveys as well. If I send Tim the info there is no guarantee he will change his mind. A complicating factor is that John has retired so the evidence will have to be compelling for Dennis to change the rating if he wants too...or even can. I haven't heard of a tornado survey being reanalyzed but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened or can't happen. But I promise to look at your DM closely and to respect your time it took to send me the info. It's the least I can do since you put in the time to send it to me. No guarantees that it will change. Sound fair enough?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WVU said:

I just saw it. Give me a couple of days to read it closely. It's 2 am and everything is blurry. After I look it over closely I'll DM you back. When I have a chance to really look it over and if I agree with you I will have no problem messaging Tim and sending him the info. They do reanalyze hurricanes occasionally later...I don't see why they wouldn't reanalyze surveys as well. If I send Tim the info there is no guarantee he will change his mind. A complicating factor is that John has retired so the evidence will have to be compelling for Dennis to change the rating if he wants too...or even can. I haven't heard of a tornado survey being reanalyzed but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened or can't happen. But I promise to look at your DM closely and to respect your time it took to send me the info. It's the least I can do since you put in the time to send it to me. No guarantees that it will change. Sound fair enough?

I appreciate you taking the time to read.

I have only heard of one tornado that has been upgraded years after it occurred since the 2007 implementation of the EF scale, which was the Bellemont, Arizona tornado of October 6, 2010. It was upgraded from EF2 to EF3 last year. So while it is almost unheard of, we do have one recent example of precedence to show that it is possible. 

While it's nice to hope, I strongly doubt that a rating change will happen. It isn't going to be a high priority objective, and given the fact that LZK staunchly defended their decision when people criticized them, it isn't going to be a "good look" for them if they suddenly start backpedaling and admitting it was a bad call years after the fact. Humans are involved, so pride/ego is going to be a factor, whether anyone wants to admit that or not. I give the probability of a thorough re-analysis being done as about 1% or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, andyhb said:

Re: one structure being the basis of the rating, well here you go.

 

It should be known that this one of the excuses Robinson used to keep Vilonia at EF4, though it wasn't valid even if that was a real rule, as there were at least two homes that met the anchoring and contextual criteria for EF5. Good to see someone officially put that utter bs to rest though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...