[LINK] Tsunami Warning test shows problems

[Tom Worthington]

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (part of the US NOAA, based in 
Hawaii) conducted a communications test at 0153z 11 July 2007:

>This is a test to verify communication links and determine 
>transmission times involved in the dissemination of operational 
>tsunami advice products from the pacific tsunami warning center to 
>designated 24-hour tsunami warning focal points of the pacific 
>tsunami warning system. ...

The official addressees were asked to report back how and when the 
message was received. The centre will then calculate the transmission 
time. Messages are sent by fax and email, as well as several 
specialized networks: Global Telecommunications System (GTS), 
Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunication Network (AFTN) , Emergency 
Managers Weather Information Network (EMWIN), and Ranet.

The official recipients are designated 24-hour emergency centers in 
countries of the Pacific region. The message was also forwarded by 
the interim Indian Ocean warning system sponsored by UNESCO.

While not part of the official test, receipt on my system indicated:

>From            Time
PTWC            1:53:39
unesco.org      2:19:44
Spam Filter     2:19:46
Local Host      2:19:51

This indicates there was a twenty six minute delay in the UNESCO 
system forwarding the message to the Indian Ocean network. Also there 
are six seconds delay within the local host machine, mostly due to 
the spam filtering. As I previously noted there is also a risk the 
message may not be received at all due to spam filters 
<http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2007/06/tsumani-waring-system-sening-out-spam.html>.

The PTWC have also instituted a colour coded four level system for 
grading tsunami warnings, with green, yellow, amber and red, 
indicating the increasing severity 
<http://www.prh.noaa.gov/pr/ptwc/about_messages.php?region=0>. A dial 
with pointer (similar to Australian bushfire warning signs) is used 
to indicate the severity on the colored scale 
<http://www.prh.noaa.gov/pr/ptwc/images/status_low.png>. This is 
useful for those who are unable to perceive color. However, there are 
no text equivalents for the colours and the text description are 
incomplete and ambiguous.

The description says: "Colors correspond to the message severity 
(red=most, green=least)". However, the other two levels are not 
mentioned. Also the text descriptions "most" and "least" do not match 
those used to label the corresponding dial images: "low", "moderate", 
"high", and "severe". In addition, the levels on the description page 
are in the reverse order (high to low) to those on the indicator dial 
(low to high), which is confusing. Also those less familiar with 
English will have difficulty distinguishing which is higher 
priority:  "high" or "severe".

PTWC should list all four severity levels in order of severity on the 
description page and include standard text captions. The same text 
captions should be used adjacent to the dial on warning pages for 
those who cannot see the images. PTWC should also consider including 
a numeric ranking from 1 to 4.



Tom Worthington FACS HLM tom.worthington at tomw.net.au Ph: 0419 496150
Director, Tomw Communications Pty Ltd            ABN: 17 088 714 309
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617                http://www.tomw.net.au/
Visiting Fellow, ANU      Blog: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/atom.xml