Possible New 2-Day Connecticut Snowfall Record

[donsutherland1]

North Haven, CT picked up 30.5" snow in the January 11-12, 2011 timeframe. That would exceed the existing state record of 30.0" at Falls Village set on February 5-6, 1920. However, it was a public report.

From the NWS Upton Public Information Statement:

000
NOUS41 KOKX 130222
PNSOKX
CTZ005>012-NJZ002-004-006-103>108-NYZ067>075-078>081-176>179-131357-

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
SPOTTER REPORTS
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
921 PM EST WED JAN 12 2011

THE FOLLOWING ARE UNOFFICIAL OBSERVATIONS TAKEN DURING THE PAST 32
HOURS FOR THE STORM THAT HAS BEEN AFFECTING OUR REGION. APPRECIATION
IS EXTENDED TO HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS...COOPERATIVE OBSERVERS...SKYWARN
SPOTTERS AND MEDIA FOR THESE REPORTS. THIS SUMMARY IS ALSO AVAILABLE
ON OUR HOME PAGE AT WEATHER.GOV/NYC

********************STORM TOTAL SNOWFALL********************

LOCATION          STORM TOTAL     TIME/DATE   COMMENTS
                    SNOWFALL           OF
                    /INCHES/   MEASUREMENT

CONNECTICUT

...NEW HAVEN COUNTY...
  NORTH HAVEN           30.5   630 PM  1/12  PUBLIC

[weatherwiz]

That is sick stuff!

[ORH_wxman]

I find it interesting that the source of that total is "PUBLIC" and not an official coop or even a spotter. I didn't know they recognized those totals as official for breaking a record. Not that its necessarily false, but still surprised that is the source.

[Fozz]

What an incredible storm......for such a fast mover it is shocking that anyone could get 30".

[donsutherland1]

I find it interesting that the source of that total is "PUBLIC" and not an official coop or even a spotter. I didn't know they recognized those totals as official for breaking a record. Not that its necessarily false, but still surprised that is the source.

You're probably right. It will be interesting to see if it is confirmed and made official. I've changed the heading to possible record. FWIW, the highest snowfall amount on any PNS was 38.0" at Savoy, MA.

[weatherwiz]

At least it was in a location to where if a 30'' amount was possible it would be there...they sat in that band for hours and hours getting a solid 2-4''/HR stuff for several hours. Also doesn't seem totally out of line given surrounding reports. Will be interesting to see if this can be verified.

[ORH_wxman]

You're probably right. It will be interesting to see if it is confirmed and made official. FWIW, the highest snowfall amount on any PNS was 38.0" at Savoy, MA.

Don,

I misread the initial PNS...I thought it said for some reason that it broke the record...but it didn't. It just listed the amount. I don't think they'll take it if its not a coop or first order site. But I could be wrong, it will be interesting to see. The Berkshires had some incredible totals. Savoy was a perfect spot as they got into that band but they are also on the crest and managed some upslope on the northwest wind during the latter stage of the storm.

[rivers]

I find it interesting that the source of that total is "PUBLIC" and not an official coop or even a spotter. I didn't know they recognized those totals as official for breaking a record. Not that its necessarily false, but still surprised that is the source.

I find it suspicious im 5 miles due south and had 18 inches of snow 17.8 to be exact .The problem with upton is highest total wins and it soon becomes a race to see who can top who. I have been a storm spotter since 1995 and lost my identification card years ago so I now list it under public. for this storm I cleared 3 areas 4x4 spaces before the storm and removed the 6 inches of snow that fell prior . I believe that alot of mistakes have been made with this storm regarding combining the old snow with the new thus the high totals.my report of 17.8 was thrown out by upton for someone who put 19.8

[donsutherland1]

Don,

I misread the initial PNS...I thought it said for some reason that it broke the record...but it didn't. It just listed the amount. I don't think they'll take it if its not a coop or first order site. But I could be wrong, it will be interesting to see. The Berkshires had some incredible totals. Savoy was a perfect spot as they got into that band but they are also on the crest and managed some upslope on the northwest wind during the latter stage of the storm.

IMO, the more stringent standard should apply. Measurements by the public can be quite inconsistent.

[ORH_wxman]

I find it suspicious im 5 miles due south and had 18 inches of snow 17.8 to be exact .The problem with upton is highest total wins and it soon becomes a race to see who can top who. I have been a storm spotter since 1995 and lost my identification card years ago so I now list it under public. for this storm I cleared 3 areas 4x4 spaces before the storm and removed the 6 inches of snow that fell prior . I believe that alot of mistakes have been made with this storm regarding combining the old snow with the new thus the high totals.my report of 17.8 was thrown out by upton for someone who put 19.8

I hate seeing the "pissing matches" that start to ruin snowfall reports. The good thing about this forum and the internet is we can now much better quality check the data. There's people nearby to call out the faulty totals usually. I mean as much as Ray wants 26" of snow, he was quick to call out the report down the road from him.

It will be interesting to see if they look into that report as it would be a big deal...as the title of this thread suggests.

[weatherwiz]

I find it suspicious im 5 miles due south and had 18 inches of snow 17.8 to be exact .The problem with upton is highest total wins and it soon becomes a race to see who can top who. I have been a storm spotter since 1995 and lost my identification card years ago so I now list it under public. for this storm I cleared 3 areas 4x4 spaces before the storm and removed the 6 inches of snow that fell prior . I believe that alot of mistakes have been made with this storm regarding combining the old snow with the new thus the high totals.my report of 17.8 was thrown out by upton for someone who put 19.8

Really? wow...that certainly does make that report seem much more suspicious than I had first thought. No way there was a difference of over 1' of snow in a 5 mi span. Sounds like someone perhaps measured a drift.

[Quincy]

I find it suspicious im 5 miles due south and had 18 inches of snow 17.8 to be exact .The problem with upton is highest total wins and it soon becomes a race to see who can top who. I have been a storm spotter since 1995 and lost my identification card years ago so I now list it under public. for this storm I cleared 3 areas 4x4 spaces before the storm and removed the 6 inches of snow that fell prior . I believe that alot of mistakes have been made with this storm regarding combining the old snow with the new thus the high totals.my report of 17.8 was thrown out by upton for someone who put 19.8

I stopped reporting to Upton. The Danbury totals are almost ALWAYS a couple inches higher than what I measure and it doesn't make much sense. For this storm, I think there were a lot of erroneous reports, with people mixing old snow with new. We even had some arguments with the DOT reports, since, IMO, they seem inflated the majority of the time.

My neighbor, for example, told me we had 21 inches earlier this morning, but I failed to measure more than 18 legitimate inches ANYWHERE, and I took dozens of measurements.

With this all said, did anyone in CT reach 30 inches? Maybe not, but I still think a notable area got over two feet, which considering most of that snow fell in a 10 hour window is pretty darn impressive.

[jconsor]

Quincy - Thanks, this is very good info, especially for those trying to verify forecasts

I stopped reporting to Upton. The Danbury totals are almost ALWAYS a couple inches higher than what I measure and it doesn't make much sense. For this storm, I think there were a lot of erroneous reports, with people mixing old snow with new. We even had some arguments with the DOT reports, since, IMO, they seem inflated the majority of the time.

My neighbor, for example, told me we had 21 inches earlier this morning, but I failed to measure more than 18 legitimate inches ANYWHERE, and I took dozens of measurements.

With this all said, did anyone in CT reach 30 inches? Maybe not, but I still think a notable area got over two feet, which considering most of that snow fell in a 10 hour window is pretty darn impressive.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I hate seeing the "pissing matches" that start to ruin snowfall reports. The good thing about this forum and the internet is we can now much better quality check the data. There's people nearby to call out the faulty totals usually. I mean as much as Ray wants 26" of snow, he was quick to call out the report down the road from him.

It will be interesting to see if they look into that report as it would be a big deal...as the title of this thread suggests.

I'm gonna measure at my sister's tmw and I'll let you know what I come up with.....I'm about 3 mi to the west of the plaza and she is about 3 mi east of it, so that should give us a good idea.

I think it was BS, though.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I stopped reporting to Upton. The Danbury totals are almost ALWAYS a couple inches higher than what I measure and it doesn't make much sense. For this storm, I think there were a lot of erroneous reports, with people mixing old snow with new. We even had some arguments with the DOT reports, since, IMO, they seem inflated the majority of the time.

My neighbor, for example, told me we had 21 inches earlier this morning, but I failed to measure more than 18 legitimate inches ANYWHERE, and I took dozens of measurements.

With this all said, did anyone in CT reach 30 inches? Maybe not, but I still think a notable area got over two feet, which considering most of that snow fell in a 10 hour window is pretty darn impressive.

An 18" depth is pretty much on par with what you would expect after a 21" snowFALL......that is about exactly what I came up with.

There is a reason why they have a designated area for depth on the spotter report....it's different from snowfall.

This is not complicated.

[mulen]

Measuring snow is like fishing come on guys you know everyone has snowgoggles congrats SNE thankfully i don't need a bulldozer this time around see ya.

[Collinsville]

I find it suspicious im 5 miles due south and had 18 inches of snow 17.8 to be exact .The problem with upton is highest total wins and it soon becomes a race to see who can top who. I have been a storm spotter since 1995 and lost my identification card years ago so I now list it under public. for this storm I cleared 3 areas 4x4 spaces before the storm and removed the 6 inches of snow that fell prior . I believe that alot of mistakes have been made with this storm regarding combining the old snow with the new thus the high totals.my report of 17.8 was thrown out by upton for someone who put 19.8

I've learned over the years to largely ignore PNS reports since the highest total that comes in gets on the list. I got 17" yesterday and I easily could have posted on here that I got 20" whoohooo!! and no one would have questioned it at all. I just keep putting my own totals into a log, what I get is what I get.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

I stopped reporting to Upton. The Danbury totals are almost ALWAYS a couple inches higher than what I measure and it doesn't make much sense. For this storm, I think there were a lot of erroneous reports, with people mixing old snow with new. We even had some arguments with the DOT reports, since, IMO, they seem inflated the majority of the time.

My neighbor, for example, told me we had 21 inches earlier this morning, but I failed to measure more than 18 legitimate inches ANYWHERE, and I took dozens of measurements.

With this all said, did anyone in CT reach 30 inches? Maybe not, but I still think a notable area got over two feet, which considering most of that snow fell in a 10 hour window is pretty darn impressive.

see below

Measuring snow is like fishing come on guys you know everyone has snowgoggles congrats SNE thankfully i don't need a bulldozer this time around see ya.

see below

I've learned over the years to largely ignore PNS reports since the highest total that comes in gets on the list. I got 17" yesterday and I easily could have posted on here that I got 20" whoohooo!! and no one would have questioned it at all. I just keep putting my own totals into a log, what I get is what I get.

the problem is there is now both an economic and personal benefit to snow totals. Now even most TV stations only show the top 10 or so totals. At one time they'd go around, in Boston it seems to be all about who got the most on TV.

With PNS reports - they're used by town managers, business owners, school districts, bosses etc. If someone sees a 20" report, now maybe they report 21-22" even though they aren't positive because of drifting etc. We all do it self included in terms of using the PNS to "verify" our own measurements and thoughts. "The guy three miles away reported 8" I came up with 9" but it's drifting tough to measure...but I'll go with 9" anyway". When if the guy two miles away reported 7" I may have been more cautious. But who's verifying the PNS reports with so many public/ham radio reports now being used?

I don't submit my reports for most storms because the time and effort needed to accurately measure a storm total I just won't do. The rare event like yesterday when I got up at 430am during the change to measure...if I hadn't done that I'd have been low 2" by morning. On the same token with all the wind we have here it is near impossible to accurately measure so I'll ALWAYS go low even in 05. Otherwise I'm distorting history one way or the other which I don't like to do.

WIth the PNS/TV reports it's all a race. If some area gets 15-20" of snow the schools get closed for a few days, work is let out/work from home, plow operators are kept on the clock. There's just a huge economic/emotional/personal incentive to over-report snow accidentally or deliberately.

I'd like to see NOAA run an expirement and stuff a bunch of paid observers in towns in advance of a storm and see how their totals verify against the reported ones on TV etc.

My personal feeling on it is that its doing two things. One, we use historical records to compare storms but when you had a small network of reporters in say 78 versus what we have now via the web we missed a ton of the banding in that/those storms. So we look at the major cities/airports and then compare that storm to say 1/05. When if in 78 we had the same network those "isolated" 55" reports of snow with snow up to the roofs in drifts wouldn't have been isolated we would have been able to see the banding pretty easily because of all the spotters and that storm would be even more legendary than it is. So it jades the comparison just based on the relatively limited number of stations we have. Just look at BDL official...there are totals 50% higher than that in the PNS and that's legit because we all saw the radar. Yet the 27 or so in 78 right on the ocean....there were reports double that inland in the fluff that are pseudo-legend because of how we did things then.

Second, it really does highlight the great difficulty in forecasting meso bands that aren't orographically/partially induced like the berkshires. With all the reports we have now we can clearly see, even if inflated, that snow totals can vary 20, 30, 50% in just a few miles. That's cool.

Let's also not forget there's a huge incentive for higher totals if forecasts for higher totals have been made. I remember in the days of Bob Copeland, Bill Hovey, Don Kent...they wouldn't just take any report and the reports they posted were almost ALWAYS from the same people. Now it seems like everyone with a yardstick and cell phone can get into the TV/PNS. It was painful to watch WHDH yesterday trying to explain how one spot got 25" and next door got 17' when Ray was right in that area reporting around the 17"...even they knew it was probably BS but it made it into the legend of this storm anyway.

I just think NOAA should put some time/money into actually verifying some reports so that we all get a feel for it one way or the other. When they have snow total hot spots, find a way to get an observer there/co-op., employee whatever.

I guess I really feel that NYC got alot of crap for the snow they got in terms of how they handled it. If boston got another 1978, we'd be just as screwed.

Bottom line the historic reports tended to be more of "what was on the ground" when snow fell at least in terms of non-first line reports. That's much different now. When we called in reports in the 70s 80s and through the 97 storm...we measured what was on the ground from that storm. My 97 report was on the low end and at the time I didn't know and nobody ever told me/us we were supposed to be clearing every six hours etc. For 20 years our reports went in from the same area....a storm like 97 would have been 5-6" more if done "right" If I reported 24" and noaa came out and measured 23/24" the report would have been deemed good even though it was really 27/29" of paste via the real standard. Skews our comparison to new/old storms really badly IMO

[Analog96]

An 18" depth is pretty much on par with what you would expect after a 21" snowFALL......that is about exactly what I came up with.

There is a reason why they have a designated area for depth on the spotter report....it's different from snowfall.

This is not complicated.

Not necessarily. First of all, Upton does not differentiate on the forms. As far as co-op sheets (CF6) go, the depth is taken every morning at 12Z. Depending on when the snow fell, the depth could be basically the same.

[Analog96]

see below

see below

the problem is there is now both an economic and personal benefit to snow totals. Now even most TV stations only show the top 10 or so totals. At one time they'd go around, in Boston it seems to be all about who got the most on TV.

With PNS reports - they're used by town managers, business owners, school districts, bosses etc. If someone sees a 20" report, now maybe they report 21-22" even though they aren't positive because of drifting etc. We all do it self included in terms of using the PNS to "verify" our own measurements and thoughts. "The guy three miles away reported 8" I came up with 9" but it's drifting tough to measure...but I'll go with 9" anyway". When if the guy two miles away reported 7" I may have been more cautious. But who's verifying the PNS reports with so many public/ham radio reports now being used?

I don't submit my reports for most storms because the time and effort needed to accurately measure a storm total I just won't do. The rare event like yesterday when I got up at 430am during the change to measure...if I hadn't done that I'd have been low 2" by morning. On the same token with all the wind we have here it is near impossible to accurately measure so I'll ALWAYS go low even in 05. Otherwise I'm distorting history one way or the other which I don't like to do.

WIth the PNS/TV reports it's all a race. If some area gets 15-20" of snow the schools get closed for a few days, work is let out/work from home, plow operators are kept on the clock. There's just a huge economic/emotional/personal incentive to over-report snow accidentally or deliberately.

I'd like to see NOAA run an expirement and stuff a bunch of paid observers in towns in advance of a storm and see how their totals verify against the reported ones on TV etc.

My personal feeling on it is that its doing two things. One, we use historical records to compare storms but when you had a small network of reporters in say 78 versus what we have now via the web we missed a ton of the banding in that/those storms. So we look at the major cities/airports and then compare that storm to say 1/05. When if in 78 we had the same network those "isolated" 55" reports of snow with snow up to the roofs in drifts wouldn't have been isolated we would have been able to see the banding pretty easily because of all the spotters and that storm would be even more legendary than it is. So it jades the comparison just based on the relatively limited number of stations we have. Just look at BDL official...there are totals 50% higher than that in the PNS and that's legit because we all saw the radar. Yet the 27 or so in 78 right on the ocean....there were reports double that inland in the fluff that are pseudo-legend because of how we did things then.

Second, it really does highlight the great difficulty in forecasting meso bands that aren't orographically/partially induced like the berkshires. With all the reports we have now we can clearly see, even if inflated, that snow totals can vary 20, 30, 50% in just a few miles. That's cool.

Let's also not forget there's a huge incentive for higher totals if forecasts for higher totals have been made. I remember in the days of Bob Copeland, Bill Hovey, Don Kent...they wouldn't just take any report and the reports they posted were almost ALWAYS from the same people. Now it seems like everyone with a yardstick and cell phone can get into the TV/PNS. It was painful to watch WHDH yesterday trying to explain how one spot got 25" and next door got 17' when Ray was right in that area reporting around the 17"...even they knew it was probably BS but it made it into the legend of this storm anyway.

I just think NOAA should put some time/money into actually verifying some reports so that we all get a feel for it one way or the other. When they have snow total hot spots, find a way to get an observer there/co-op., employee whatever.

I guess I really feel that NYC got alot of crap for the snow they got in terms of how they handled it. If boston got another 1978, we'd be just as screwed.

Bottom line the historic reports tended to be more of "what was on the ground" when snow fell at least in terms of non-first line reports. That's much different now. When we called in reports in the 70s 80s and through the 97 storm...we measured what was on the ground from that storm. My 97 report was on the low end and at the time I didn't know and nobody ever told me/us we were supposed to be clearing every six hours etc. For 20 years our reports went in from the same area....a storm like 97 would have been 5-6" more if done "right" If I reported 24" and noaa came out and measured 23/24" the report would have been deemed good even though it was really 27/29" of paste via the real standard. Skews our comparison to new/old storms really badly IMO

How much time would it really take? Most of the WFOs can recognize their reporters. Such as, myself. I have been reporting snow amounts for Elizabeth for over 15 years. When I submit it to Upton, they usually know it's me. (Plus I have my spotter ID). If some Joe Blow measures snow in a nearby town and it's vastly different, I don't know why they automatically have to accept it. Another thing that bothers me on PNSs is why "old" reports are included on final PNSs. For example, a member of the public sends in a report at noon. Howver, it obviously did not stop snowing there until 5 PM and snowed 2-4" more. Yet that old report is still included in the PNS. Just delete it! Sometimes, quality > quantity.

[snowman21]

I just think NOAA should put some time/money into actually verifying some reports so that we all get a feel for it one way or the other. When they have snow total hot spots, find a way to get an observer there/co-op., employee whatever.

What about co-ops? The co-op network is pretty dense through this region, and they all pretty much report snowfall, but they often don't report to the NWS or have delayed measurements making them not as real-time as spotter or public reports. The only people who really ever see that data is the NCDC a day or two (or 30), but it might useful for verification purposes.

[Analog96]

What about co-ops? The co-op network is pretty dense through this region, and they all pretty much report snowfall, but they often don't report to the NWS or have delayed measurements making them not as real-time as spotter or public reports. The only people who really ever see that data is the NCDC a day or two (or 30), but it might useful for verification purposes.

Co-ops can use the submission system just like everyone else and report the data earlier in addition to the daily form. No reason not to do that.

[snowman21]

How much time would it really take? Most of the WFOs can recognize their reporters. Such as, myself. I have been reporting snow amounts for Elizabeth for over 15 years. When I submit it to Upton, they usually know it's me. (Plus I have my spotter ID). If some Joe Blow measures snow in a nearby town and it's vastly different, I don't know why they automatically have to accept it. Another thing that bothers me on PNSs is why "old" reports are included on final PNSs. For example, a member of the public sends in a report at noon. Howver, it obviously did not stop snowing there until 5 PM and snowed 2-4" more. Yet that old report is still included in the PNS. Just delete it! Sometimes, quality > quantity.

It's still somewhat useful data even if old, but none of the reports on the PNS are technically official anyway. Only co-ops or first order stations make it into the history books.

[snowman21]

Co-ops can use the submission system just like everyone else and report the data earlier in addition to the daily form. No reason not to do that.

Sure there is - they have jobs and a life outside of measuring the weather (though technically they're there for climate purposes). They are dedicated at what they do for sure, but understandably can't go out and measure every hour or every six hours or don't have time to submit data to the NWS in a near real-time manner.

[Analog96]

It's still somewhat useful data even if old, but none of the reports on the PNS are technically official anyway. Only co-ops or first order stations make it into the history books.

I know, but why have it in there when it's only a few miles away from someone with a newer report? It doesn't make sense when someone in the media posts it an says "Wow, the total was much lower there."

[Analog96]

Sure there is - they have jobs and a life outside of measuring the weather (though technically they're there for climate purposes). They are dedicated at what they do for sure, but understandably can't go out and measure every hour or every six hours or don't have time to submit data to the NWS in a near real-time manner.

It takes 2 minutes to measure the snow and submit a report.

[donsutherland1]

FYI, I received an email photo from North Haven. Based on the photo, even allowing for compacting, I don't believe 30.5" fell there. Two feet, almost certainly, but not 30.5".

I will also note that I didn't realize things were as bad as some have described with the reports on the public information statements. Errors, of course, are not confined to public reports. FAA and COOP reports have had issues from time to time in the past, so even there while reliability is greater, there is a margin of error. If I recall correctly, Central Park used to have a lot of issues. Richmond had some issues last winter, as did BWI. There was also an event maybe two years ago where cars in the vicinity of DCA were photographed with about an inch of snow on their roofs, yet DCA reported a trace of snow.

Perhaps, random verification of some of the reports could take place. Spotters and others who have demonstrated reasonable reliability would have their reports placed in the PNS. Those who have not would not. Those whose amounts haven't been verified in the past, but have not necessarily been found unreliable, would have an asterisk placed to their numbers. In the end, accuracy is important. That, in large part, is why I like the way the snowfall amounts that are considered in determining a storm's NESIS scale rating are fairly selective.

[ORH_wxman]

It takes 2 minutes to measure the snow and submit a report.

You have to do it at the same location though. If someone is working or is not home, they can't measure until they get back to the site.

These big storms can bring out a lot of slant stickers (including the media which likes to hype up storms)...so just taking a more recent report from some unknown source like the media or Joe Schmoe measuring isn't exactly the best way to gather accurate data. Its nice to have the reports, but a lot nicer if they can be verified by legit sources.

[snowman21]

It takes 2 minutes to measure the snow and submit a report.

I know but what I am saying is they may not be at home where their station is. For example yesterday. I'm sure a lot of the co-op observers went off to work as normal after taking their readings at their designated time for measuring snow (usually in the morning) and maybe they measured again at night if they felt like it, but maybe didn't until this morning. I guess what I'm saying is their purpose isn't to provide real-time information - that's more of a spotter function not a climate monitoring station function.

[Organizing Low]

FYI, I received an email photo from North Haven. Based on the photo, even allowing for compacting, I don't believe 30.5" fell there. Two feet, almost certainly, but not 30.5".

I will also note that I didn't realize things were as bad as some have described with the reports on the public information statements. Errors, of course, are not confined to public reports. FAA and COOP reports have had issues from time to time in the past, so even there while reliability is greater, there is a margin of error. If I recall correctly, Central Park used to have a lot of issues. Richmond had some issues last winter, as did BWI. There was also an event maybe two years ago where cars in the vicinity of DCA were photographed with about an inch of snow on their roofs, yet DCA reported a trace of snow.

Perhaps, random verification of some of the reports could take place. Spotters and others who have demonstrated reasonable reliability would have their reports placed in the PNS. Those who have not would not. Those whose amounts haven't been verified in the past, but have not necessarily been found unreliable, would have an asterisk placed to their numbers. In the end, accuracy is important. That, in large part, is why I like the way the snowfall amounts that are considered in determining a storm's NESIS scale rating are fairly selective.

its amazing that there are so many issues with snowmeasuring, esp at official stations.

i wish we could get Ray to setup some sort of course to teach all these people the correct and standardized way to do this right. or just get Ray a job where he travels around and assesses and verifies snowfalls. i dont think he would mind.

montreal and pearson toronto, 2 major airport official stations are awful as well.....montreal has issues with snowdepth and toronto with snowfall.

incidentally Don, i believe that Ottawa airport does it SO well, they should be standard against which all stations are held. they are immaculate.