[EAS] "improving" EAS?

[Dave Kline]

The problem with trying to classify a "false" alert is that it would seem to be on a sliding scale in proportion to its impact on the community. Is a missile alert for Honolulu that turns out to not be real more "false" than a radar-only indicated TOR that never touched down in Cherry County NE? 

On one end of that scale you have some immediate wide-spread catastrophic event supposedly happening right now.
The other end of that scale would be someone issuing an unauthorized RMT. Both could be considered "false", but one has a much greater impact on a community. Should they both be subject to the same reporting criteria for a false alert?

At what point do you declare a false alert to be bad, where is that demarcation?
It just seems silly to try to classify something as being false or not, because the circumstances surrounding it affect its "falseness" or whether it is false or just a mistake.

It just seems like another case of someone trying to apply a singular definition to situations that can have many varied circumstances and/or outcomes.
----------------------------------------
Dave Kline
----------------------------------------

On Jul 13, 2018, at 11:06 AM, Steve Schoon wrote:

>Furthermore, if the NWS issues a SVR claiming 60+ MPH winds and damaging hail for your community and it doesn't come to pass, it can effectively be called a FALSE ALERT!  Every attorney in every courtroom in the country will argue it as such.
>What about a radar indicated TOR that remained only radar indicated, no evidence of a touchdown?  By definition, it's a funnel cloud until or unless it touches the ground.

>Perhaps VOLUNTARY reporting would be a better, non-EAS-dooming approach.  Otherwise, too many broadcasters will not forward weather warnings at all, to avoid being put in the position of having to audit the NWS, et al.