[Ian Williams]

One question is would anyone be able to post a new post in the confirmed thread? or would it be a case of in the RFMI/ maybe thread then a manager when all is agreed moves it to the confirmed thrread, whereby then any poster can reply, bit like the site and suggestions forum?

This post has been edited by Ian Williams: 28 April 2012 - 20:00

[Tony Gilbert]

Dave Hancox, on 28 April 2012 - 19:53, said:

I think it could be done Tony. Could you post what would be the best guidelines.

Dave please feel free to copy and past this information into the header box;

Just to say that this was originally my text into the TORRO website around 2004 but has had some discrete editing just recently to iron out a few imperfections

1. Date, time and location of the event.
2. Date and time of site investigation(s).
3. Approximate damage track length and width.
4. Maximum intensity based on the TORRO Tornado Intensity (T) scale.
5. A graphic overview of the damage track with damage markers (e.g. as in Fig 1).
6. Descriptions of the damage observed at various points, or the most significant instances of damage.
7. Photographs of the damage.
8. A conclusion as to the most likely cause of the damage (i.e. tornado, downburst etc.). An ‘open verdict’ is perfectly acceptable where uncertainty remains.
Additionally, reports may include the following:

• 9. A radar sequence for that period
• 10. A synoptic analysis map for that day
• 11. Radiosonde data (i.e. tephigrams, aka skew-t diagrams).

This post has been edited by Tony Gilbert: 28 April 2012 - 20:29

[Tony Gilbert]

Chris Lloyd, on 28 April 2012 - 20:11, said:

Great idea Tony.

Can I just add, RFMI gets used a lot on here. RFMI means (I believe) Request For More Information. This is unclear to a lot of people.

In the modern abbreviated world, not all are 'au fait' and if you actually Google RFMI, well........

Yes this is true Chris, a request for information no matter how brief or uncertain can easily lead to better understanding of recent events. Maybe by keeping this new forum open and 'easy going' new or novice member won't be over stressed by what they can realistically offer

[Paul Domaille]

Tony, we're in deep discussion about this, sounds like a good idea and I think an aditional forum will be forthcoming very shortly.
Cheers,
Paul D

[John Mason]

Late in on this but great idea Tony and good to see that it will be implemented. Nice one!

Cheers - John

[Tony Gilbert]

Tony Gilbert, on 28 April 2012 - 20:00, said:

Dave please feel free to copy and past this information into the header box;

Just to say that this was originally my text into the TORRO website around 2004 but has had some discrete editing just recently to iron out a few imperfections

1. Date, time and location of the event.
2. Date and time of site investigation(s).
3. Approximate damage track length and width.
4. Maximum intensity based on the TORRO Tornado Intensity (T) scale.
5. A graphic overview of the damage track with damage markers (e.g. as in Fig 1).
6. Descriptions of the damage observed at various points, or the most significant instances of damage.
7. Photographs of the damage.
8. A conclusion as to the most likely cause of the damage (i.e. tornado, downburst etc.). An ‘open verdict’ is perfectly acceptable where uncertainty remains.
Additionally, reports may include the following:

• 9. A radar sequence for that period
• 10. A synoptic analysis map for that day
• 11. Radiosonde data (i.e. tephigrams, aka skew-t diagrams).

PS Re the above...This is obviously in connection with those that would like to offer assistance regarding tornado damage ground work.


Conversely my advice/ guidlines regarding looking for or photographing funnel clouds etc might be regarded as follows;-

Whilst 'ideally' we should be looking for a smooth sided, rotating condensation column connected as a pendant to a cumulus congestus or cumulonimbus cloud base. In reality things might not always be as clear cut as we might have been made to expect. 'Tornadoes/ Funnel Clouds' can come in many shapes and sizes and do not always resemble the classic text book image. Such vortices's can in fact sometimes look slightly ragged and if viewed from a long distance may be impossible to confirm rotation. Just because some tornadoes do not accommodate our perceived idea visually it would be a shame to write these off altogether until they can be bought here and onto the forum for others to give their opinion. Therefore the best way forward is to deal with each case individually on its merits!

Staff please feel free to use this paragraph if you so choose!

This post has been edited by Tony Gilbert: 29 April 2012 - 09:28

[stormy sam]

im in thats for sure