"Gustnado" May Have Caused Indiana Stage Collapse

Video analysis suggests that a short-lived, ground-based vortex set off the deadly accident

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

After studying video footage and radar images from Saturday's deadly stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair, AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Henry Margusity suspects that a gustnado was a cause of the collapse.

"In the video, it appears that a possible gustnado traveled from left to right across the stage area," Margusity said. "The video shows a swirl of dust coming across the stage, and it's only when the swirl hits the stage that the stage actually collapses."

The National Weather Service defines a gustnado as a short-lived, ground-based, shallow vortex that develops along a gust front associated with either thunderstorms or showers. More information is provided at the bottom of this page.

Margusity also pointed out from the video more clues from a flag waving in the background.

"Typically, a flag that size needs winds of about 46 mph to wave around like that," Margusity explained. "Given that the flag pole was moving as well, winds were probably near 50 mph."

Wind gusts up to 50 mph were measured at Indianapolis International Airport, which is about 20 miles southwest of the fairgrounds. Radar-indicated wind speeds were 50 mph to the west of the fairgrounds about 20 minutes prior to the collapse.

Margusity said that changes in the orientation of the flag further supports the idea that it was a gustnado that came through.

"The flag actually turns toward the dust swirl after the stage collapsed and as the dust swirl moves past it," Margusity stated. "This indicates that a circulation of wind was moving through the area."

Taking a look at radar data from Saturday evening, a gust front can be seen propagating ahead of a line of thunderstorms approaching the fairgrounds from the west.

At 8:35 p.m. EDT, radar showed the thunderstorms collapsing and sending out a gust front 3 miles ahead of the storms.

By 8:44 p.m., the gust front was accelerating, traveling at a speed of 53 mph. At 8:48 p.m., it hit the stage.

The thunderstorms at the time of the collapse were still 10 miles away to the west and didn't hit the fairgrounds until 9:02 p.m.

Radar-estimated wind speeds could not be measured during the collapse because of radar clutter.

Other evidence supporting Margusity's gustnado theory are videos (below) taken by storm chaser Michael Moss in the Indianapolis area that showed several gustnadoes along a gust front.

Definition of a Gustnado, from the National Weather Service

A slang term for a short-lived, ground-based, shallow, vortex that develops on a gust front associated with either thunderstorms or showers. They may only extend to 30 to 300 feet above the ground with no apparent connection to the convective cloud above. They may be accompanied by rain, but usually are 'wispy', or only visible as a debris cloud or dust whirl at or near the ground. Wind speeds can reach 60 to 80 mph, resulting in significant damage, similar to that of a F0 or F1 tornado. However, gustnadoes are not considered to be a tornado, and some cases, it may be difficult to distinguish a gustnado from a tornado. Gustnadoes are not associated with storm-scale rotation (i.e. mesocyclones) that is involved with true tornadoes; they are more likely to be associated visually with a shelf cloud that is found on the forward side of a thunderstorm.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


From AccuWeather.com (find the original story here); reprinted with permission.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe