Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board (2024)

The NEXRAD/WSR-88D network was leaps and bounds ahead of anything that came before it, but there's no good reason it has to be the end of radar coverage expansion in the United States. Some of the "holes" are bad enough and that's assuming all the radars are working and disseminating data properly. Even the magical, miracle tornado detection product known as Correlation Coefficient made possible by the dual-polarization upgrades has proven to be not quite as foolproof as initially hoped (with both false positives and negatives noted), mainly due to distance/beam height.

I would really like to see some of those gaps filled (the tornadic supercell in southeastern Iowa on Tuesday was in a terrible radar hole, with the 0.5 degree tilt from the nearest site [KDVN] hitting it at about 6,600' where the tornado began near Houghton). Although, according to that Washington Post article you linked; the smaller C-band and X-band radars like those offered by Climavision have quite limited range. Ideally at least a few more S-band radars like the WSR-88D could be funded and procured, but that idea seems to have been rejected out of hand at least by the Weather Service spokesperson quoted in the article (who referred to the initial NEXRAD rollout as a "one-time acquisition").

Andy,

The gap-filler proposal was 25 C-band radars with DP. If you purchased them as a group of 25, you could get the entire radar until for about $600,000 (today's dollars) -- a huge difference from the $10 million ($31.5 million in today's dollars!) per unit for the WSR-88D's (and that was before the cost of DP). Of course, there would be the tower, comm, and land, but it is likely that the full cost would average about $1 - 1.3 million/each. I figured that independently and then looked up the all-in cost of the similar radar at Durant -- $1.3 million, and that was a one-off.

My (wild) guess was that the NWS was afraid of maintenance costs going forward. That could be dealt with but it would have exploded the "we don't need no stinkin' radars for storm warnings" facade.

The NWS didn't even bother to give us an update on the data fiasco today, which tells me the news is bad.

There are wonderful, dedicated people at the NWS. But they suffer culturally from "death by analysis." The "federal agency" excuse doesn't wash. While at WeatherData, I worked extensively with the FRA, FAA and NTSB. They were a piece of cake to work with compared to the NWS and made decisions in days or weeks instead of the NWS's many months or years.

The NWS has taken more than a decade to make a tenative decision to work with private sector weather satellite providers -- something other agencies did years ago! About six months ago, they announced it was going to take another five years (2028) before they even make a decision as to what type of radar they want to replace the WSR-88D's -- something they've already been studying for a decade. They now believe the replacement won't occur until the 2040's.

With this latest fiasco, I'm genuinely starting to wonder if the NWS can be saved, even with a NDRB. NOAA and Commerce doesn't care and they don't have anyone who champions weather in either of those agencies.

I've never been in favor of NWS privatization but it hasn't hurt Canada. Perhaps it is an idea whose time has come, especially if we don't soon get an NDRB.

Andy Wehrle said:

the smaller C-band and X-band radars like those offered by Climavision have quite limited range.

Click to expand...

The typical range of an X-band radar is 60 nm. However, a quality C-band radar has a range of 180 or 250 miles. The TDWR's are 180 and the Hugoton-type radar is 250. Way back in 1974, I watched a hailstorm moved across Olathe, KS from the WKY TV studios on their C-band. That is right at 250 miles.

Brian R. said:

Maybe after the November elections and we get rid of the current administration, we all can push for something like a NDRB to be formed, but we CANNOT allow this administration any more ability to gain power.

Click to expand...

I have a similar concern. However, I believe that, regardless, it is going to be 2025 before we can get something passed.

Brian, keep in mind my concept for the NDRB is for it to be patterned after the NTSB. That means it is an advisory board with no power to impose anything on anyone. The only "power" it would have is subpoena. Also, it would be forbidden by law to get into climate change. Why? The U.S. already has two panels that do that, we don't need a third.

Here is a fairly detailed explanation of the the NDRB would operate: An Explanation of My Idea for a National Disaster Review Board

Think about it: if the NDRB had reviewed (at Congress' request) the gap-filler radar issue (2016-17), the pressure on NOAA to accede would have probably been irresistible. Since the proposal was to purchase off-the-shelf radars, the first would probably be installed or close to being installed.

Mike Smith said:

The typical range of an X-band radar is 60 nm. However, a quality C-band radar has a range of 180 or 250 miles. The TDWR's are 180 and the Hugoton-type radar is 250. Way back in 1974, I watched a hailstorm moved across Olathe, KS from the WKY TV studios on their C-band. That is right at 250 miles.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I work at a TV station here in Madison. My employer and our competitors in the market used to operate our/their own Doppler radars, but don't anymore (one of our competitor's radar domes is still installed across the highway from us, but as far as I can tell is decommissioned). I asked our chief met once why we don't and he said it was too expensive to maintain for the benefit gained. I wonder if they would feel differently if our market saw significant severe weather on a more frequent basis (here in southern Wisconsin, we seem to end up on the northern/eastern fringes of most Upper Midwest outbreaks). I run into the same argument when I advocate for the installation of more skycams, so that if a significant tornado outbreak were to occur in our market we could cover it in a similar manner to what ABC 33/40 did on April 27, 2011.

Mike Smith said:

Brian, keep in mind my concept for the NDRB is for it to be patterned after the NTSB. That means it is an advisory board with no power to impose anything on anyone. The only "power" it would have is subpoena. Also, it would be forbidden by law to get into climate change. Why? The U.S. already has two panels that do that, we don't need a third.

Here is a fairly detailed explanation of the the NDRB would operate: An Explanation of My Idea for a National Disaster Review Board

Think about it: if the NDRB had reviewed (at Congress' request) the gap-filler radar issue (2016-17), the pressure on NOAA to accede would have probably been irresistible. Since the proposal was to purchase off-the-shelf radars, the first would probably be installed or close to being installed.

Click to expand...

I will agree that a NDRB could be a good thing, but not under the current administration. After having my relationship with my bf basically ruined by the previous mandates, having almost 3 years of my life basically being ruined by them having to tolerate being single with no company besides my sweet dog, no pleasure and nothing to do besides put effort into a career and basically be forced into a salaried full time position as an incident commander with Illinois emergency management agency instead of a basically paid on call position, I will leave it alone as it will become too politically involved conversation.

Today, the NTSB released the results of its investigation into the Austin, TX infamous runway conflict case which could have been a catastrophe. Wall Street Journal story here (should get around the paywall): https://www.wsj.com/business/airlin...tsf3nhj1csd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

What happens now? Airlines, pilot groups, pilots, avionics manufacturers, government officials and others had copies of the report with an hour as one can subscribe to these. The results will be discussed and flying will become safer.

Now, think back to the terrible December, 2022, wildfire in Boulder, Colorado. There was no expert evaluation by a generally-accepted organization. There was little distribution of what was learned.

Twenty-one months later, the horrific Maui Wildfire occurred with 101 killed. Some identical mistakes were made in Maui that were made in Boulder. Who led the 'investigation' of the Maui Fire? Hawaii's attorney general, an attorney, and there were errors of fact made in the first few paragraphs. Really!

It is the definition of stupidity to keep doing the same things and expect different results.

Please join me in supporting a NDRB. Thank you.