On Mar 18, 8:18�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Phil Kane wrote :

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:57 CST, "Dee Flint"
wrote:

Another thing to keep in mind that as our infrastructure becomes
stronger, hams will only really be needed in the absolutely worst
disasters.

There will always be a need because no matter how strong the
infrastructure is, situations will arise that exceed that capability.
Design of public safety communication systems is the specialty of my
engineering firm and I'm all too painfully aware of the real-world
limitations

* * * * Infrastructure by it's very nature becomes more fragile the more
there is of it. disasters by their nature tend to occur when multiple
problems happen. Seems like a "duh" statement, but we see it all the
time. We going to put satellites up to do emergency Operations? Right
away I see some issues. Those birds aren't cheap, so we'll probably put a
lot of stuff on them. We'll probably have a lot if interacency
"patching" available, trunking of course. It will probably be an awesome
piece of technology. Maybe it will work. Fortunately no satellite has
ever failed.... ;^)

Mike, PART of the "infrastructure" includes radio amateurs.

Back after the 17 Jan 94 Northridge earthquake here, the
existing infrastructure was behaving just fine and FEMA
brought in a bunch more communications equipment, some
of it used to show continuous video of family/friend messages.
For all of FEMA's highlighted "faults," they were equipped to
handle comms as needed. By now the Los Angeles
Communications Auxiliary (run more or less by the LAFD)
is equipped and able to roll with comm-center bus/RV
modifications. I took my exam at one such Aux station
now still called "Old Fire House 77" despite it being
re-assigned from fire fighting to communications. Some
members of that Aux group are also licensed radio
amateurs and can operate from fixed as well as mobile
station locations.

Things really aren't so scarce/rare insofar as comms
are concerned in this big city complex of 8 million plus.
It may be that much smaller areas have scarce
facilities but that is up to those locations. I'm proud
that this area I live in has beefed up its communications
in the 13 years since the Northridge quake hit. What it
has done can be a model of integration for other areas.

Just a view a bit different than most others in here.

73, Len AF6AY

wrote:

Things really aren't so scarce/rare insofar as comms
are concerned in this big city complex of 8 million plus.
It may be that much smaller areas have scarce
facilities but that is up to those locations. I'm proud
that this area I live in has beefed up its communications
in the 13 years since the Northridge quake hit. What it
has done can be a model of integration for other areas.

Just a view a bit different than most others in here.

I suppose that what I'm about to say will raise some eyebrows, too.

It strikes me that the contribution of ham radio operators in a disaster
is changing. Not so many years ago, it wasn't unusual for all
communications to be rendered inoperable when a disaster hit, and ham
radio was the only link with the outside world. We're proud of our
"When everything else fails, ham radio still works" abilities.

Then there are the organizations that are spending lots of money to
prepare mobile and semi-fixed facilities. Government agencies and NGOs
have equipped various types of vehicles to roll into a disaster and
provide communications using satellite and radio. They've installed or
staged equipment in strategic locations. Much of this work has been
done based on lessons learned during the Katrina operation.

The one thing that is always needed during a disaster is manpower. You
can stage a satellite dish, but you need someone who is trained to
deploy it after the hurricane passes through. You can equip a truck
with all the communications equipment needed to hook up an EOC with the
outside world, but who drives the truck into the area and sets up the
equipment there?

The amateur radio community is the ideal place to recruit this kind of
expertise. An alternative to doing things in the traditional way --
using your own equipment and communicating between hams using ham
frequencies -- is to affiliate with an organization that is going to
need manpower when a disaster hits. It's a different way of
accomplishing the same goal. As the requirements for communication
become more stringent due to pressure to prevent fraud and maintain
privacy, I think that this aspect will become more and more important.

I present this as food for thought and an alternative, not as any
criticism of current operations.

73, Steve KB9X

|
|It strikes me that the contribution of ham radio operators in a disaster
|is changing.

There are localized emergencies.
There are regional and national disasters.

Two different animals that require different levels of response.

I don't see the need for extra radio channels going away anytime soon.

Those fancy DHS grant mobile communications centers on wheels are neat.
Typically they bring together fire, EMS, police comms at a single site
with an interoperatability black box to tie it all together.....

When the action is nowhere near a working Nextel tower or public
service repeater site and the satellite links are maxxed out and the
local telco can not climb a pole to jack them into the Internet or POTS
Amateur Radio technology will see action.

The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense.
With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they
take each others radios out every time the other one transmits.

Steve
N2UBP

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:16:42 CST, Steven Stone
wrote:

The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense.
With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they
take each others radios out every time the other one transmits.

You've noticed......! g
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Mar 19, 2:11�pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:16:42 CST, Steven Stone
wrote:

The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense.
With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they
take each others radios out every time the other one transmits.

You've noticed......! *g
--
I have to disagree somewhat. Having gone through an exercise
in determining "closeness" of same-band aircraft radios on the
same aircraft (civil aviation band at 118-137 MHz) running 10 to
20 W max AM, only five wavelengths separation was fine.
That was back at a time (early 1970s) when high-third-order
IM specs hardly existed.

In a relatively local area, most such emergency comms will
be, generally LOS, and not "working DX." There's no point
in everyone running transmitters full-out in power for relatively
short distances. Yes, I'm familiar with Oregon topography
but NVIS techniques can also get out of the trees and the
deep low spots. If there's a Power Output control on the
rigs in use, it ought to be used to drop the RF output and
minimize desensing of nearby radios.

I'm just tossing in some things to consider in real-world
conditions. It isn't anything against what anyone is doing.

73, Len AF6AY

On Mar 19, 3:16 pm, Steven Stone wrote:


The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense.
With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they
take each others radios out every time the other one transmits.


Not if the comm center is properly designed. The techniques for
siting multiple transmitters/receivers in confined areas and
minimizing mutual interference are pretty well established.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Mar 20, 8:14�am, wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:16 pm, Steven Stone wrote:

The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense.
With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they
take each others radios out every time the other one transmits.

Not if the comm center is properly designed. *The techniques for
siting multiple transmitters/receivers in confined areas and
minimizing mutual interference are pretty well established.

If that is a real worry, each local amateur radio group can
check it out for themselves...base-mobile-handheld, any
combination they can operate on/in. There is really a
great freedom in amateur radio to convene such a group
for a real test at equipment distances on same or different
bands using different RF output powers. That will yield
data that can be of good use later in real emergencies.

73, Len AF6AY

On Mar 19, 7:16�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:
* *Things really aren't so scarce/rare insofar as comms
* *are concerned in this big city complex of 8 million plus.
* *It may be that much smaller areas have scarce
* *facilities but that is up to those locations. *I'm proud
* *that this area I live in has beefed up its communications
* *in the 13 years since the Northridge quake hit. *What it
* *has done can be a model of integration for other areas.

* *Just a view a bit different than most others in here.

I suppose that what I'm about to say will raise some eyebrows, too.

It strikes me that the contribution of ham radio operators in a disaster
is changing. *Not so many years ago, it wasn't unusual for all
communications to be rendered inoperable when a disaster hit, and ham
radio was the only link with the outside world. *We're proud of our
"When everything else fails, ham radio still works" abilities.

Well, that's what I've kept seeing/hearing for over half a
century as an adult. I have yet to witness it first-hand.
That comes from growing up in northern Illinois which had
(sometimes) rather hard winters, although not to the extent
of NW New York state conditions. I've been through several
earthquakes in the Greater Los Angeles area plus at the
edges of a typhoon elsewhere...plus a couple of river over-
flows also elsewhere. I'll discount the typhoons since those
were in northern Asia and I was in the Army at the time.
Being aware and informed through all of those events, I
just haven't seen/witnessed any case where "when all else
fails, ham radio will come through" equivalent.

I've never been IN a hurricane nor IN a tornado location nor
a tsunami nor in the middle of a massive firestorm. However,
I've seen videos (amateur photographer videos) of such events
on TV news...including the very newsworthy Katrina disaster.
Seeing such things on TV is very definitely NOT being "in"
one or suddenly becoming an "expert" on surviving one. My
last event (of being, most definitely) IN one was 13 years
ago and that was quite enough, sufficiently anxiety-prone
feelings despite having gone through several earthquakes
of lesser shaking before, both here and in Japan.

Has amateur radio actually helped handle problems caused
by a disaster DURING an event or have they been relegated
to emotional-support health-welfare messaging AFTER it?
Those are two different conditions. Communications DURING
an event have direct bearing on life-death situations while
communications afterwards concern survivors, the living.

I think it is important to differentiate between the two and
ALSO consider what actually exists in the entire
communications infrastructure that can and does survive.
Example of observable condition of flooding prior to the
Katrina disaster: TV news of a journalist being relayed live
via satellite from the Dakotas...with a clear background
image of a National Guard comms humvee with its whip
antennas tied down for nevis operation. First, the TV
person was getting through (with wide bandwidth) and
obviously in portable operation. Secondly, the NG units
use the same military radio equipment the regular military
does and are far more capable of greater environmental
extremes than nearly all amateur radio gear. On the
newsgroups and various ham websites, everyone seemed
to be giving high-fives to all hams for their marvelous
communications accomplishments...without themselves
being there. :-(

My question has always been, who is kidding who on all
this "emergency work?" It's a serious question which
always seem to raise the emotional hackles of some.
Did everyone get INTO amateur radio JUST to do all
that emergency work? I really don't think so for the vast
majority of radio amateurs. I got into it quite late in life
for one reason and one reason only: To have fun with it,
to enjoy it, to experiment (on a minor scale)...after
spending a half century of adult work experience IN
radio-electronics and enjoying all that work. I might even
try PSK31 out of curiosity; I respect the work of G3PLX,
Peter Martinez, and think it is an elegant solution to
casual communications in a very bandwidth-restricted
spectrum space.

The one thing that is always needed during a disaster is manpower. *You
can stage a satellite dish, but you need someone who is trained to
deploy it after the hurricane passes through. *You can equip a truck
with all the communications equipment needed to hook up an EOC with the
outside world, but who drives the truck into the area and sets up the
equipment there?

Around here the (unpaid) volunteers of the Los Angeles
Auxiliary Communications Service do. They volunteer
to do what is needed. If that work is the "grunt" variety,
then they do "grunt" work. That's just how it is in real
emergencies.

The amateur radio community is the ideal place to recruit this kind of
expertise. *An alternative to doing things in the traditional way --
using your own equipment and communicating between hams using ham
frequencies -- is to affiliate with an organization that is going to
need manpower when a disaster hits. *It's a different way of
accomplishing the same goal. *As the requirements for communication
become more stringent due to pressure to prevent fraud and maintain
privacy, I think that this aspect will become more and more important.

Well, I've served four separate terms of Jury Duty in my
county and served on five different juries. I don't plan on
becoming an attorney nor being involved in law...nor have
I planned to do so. Yet the jury panelists must exist IN
a very real courtroom environment and focus their
attention ON the law and case at hand. Good citizenship
should, I think, involve responsibility to the community.

I don't plan on becoming any sort of "emergency worker"
in communications yet, if a really big one occurs, I feel
that any kind of civic aid should be given, whatever kind.

I present this as food for thought and an alternative, not as any
criticism of current operations.

Understood. :-) Please color me skeptical on lots of
the emotional issues that have arisen in amateur radio
over time. I feel we should look at ALL sides of possibilities
and not get involved in the "cheering section" for "our team."

Excuse me while I continue to go through the manual for
this IC-746Pro that arrived safely yesterday. :-)

73, Len AF6AY

wrote:

Has amateur radio actually helped handle problems caused
by a disaster DURING an event or have they been relegated
to emotional-support health-welfare messaging AFTER it?

Personal listening experience here.

There was a hurricane that went through South America a year or two
back, on the way toward the US. I listened to an emergency net as a Ham
was helping another who was on a small ship caught in the storm. I
believe it was near Grenada. The ship was having engine problems, the
skipper was inexperienced, and a ham with maritime experience was
"procured" to talk the other guy through saving the boat and passengers.

Listening to the transmissions, I have no doubt that had the
instructions and help been relayed, the skipper and his passengers might
have become statistics.

Those are two different conditions. Communications DURING
an event have direct bearing on life-death situations while
communications afterwards concern survivors, the living.

The emergency is not a finite point. People who are injured during an
emergency can survive or expire during the aftermath. Who can say which
particular communications are critical except in retrospect? Health and
welfare comms are extremely important to those affected. It is important
work, whether involved in dire emergency or the less pressing aftermath.

My question has always been, who is kidding who on all
this "emergency work?" It's a serious question which
always seem to raise the emotional hackles of some.

There is a difference between Amateurs and those who are being paid for
their work. The amateurs are not being paid. Glad handing has sometimes
been called the wages of volunteerism. Perhaps a situation similar to
Volunteer firefighters is at work? Some people have issues with them
also. Yet they fill an important function.

I respectfully have to say that if a ham says something about Amateur
radio contributions to emergency communications, there are some people
who automatically dismiss their statements. Fortunately one does not
have to engage in the activity as a ham. It is completely voluntary.

73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:53:57 EDT:

wrote:
Has amateur radio actually helped handle problems caused
by a disaster DURING an event or have they been relegated
to emotional-support health-welfare messaging AFTER it?

Personal listening experience here.

There was a hurricane that went through South America a year or two
back, on the way toward the US. I listened to an emergency net as a Ham
was helping another who was on a small ship caught in the storm. I
believe it was near Grenada. The ship was having engine problems, the
skipper was inexperienced, and a ham with maritime experience was
"procured" to talk the other guy through saving the boat and passengers.

Listening to the transmissions, I have no doubt that had the
instructions and help been relayed, the skipper and his passengers might
have become statistics.

Not being a mariner and one who avoids riding ON water, I can't
comment on the veracity of that. :-)

In a relatively recent event, a west coast sailor was attempting
to sail solo towards the southern tip of South America, became
damaged (de-masted?) and the Chilean Navy - Coast Guard came to
his rescue along with other private ships in the area. The news
of both search and rescue was carried on all the TV news and
amateur radio did relay that news albeit a bit late.

Was amateur radio communications "vital" in that case? Or wasn't
it of a secondary nature in the form of "health and welfare?"
I say the latter since the principal rescuer was the military
of the government of Chile with the cooperation of fishing
vessels in the area. Safety of Life at Sea has been a bond of
ALL mariners since well before radio was demonstrated as a
communications medium. This was a case of SOLAS in action.

Those are two different conditions. Communications DURING
an event have direct bearing on life-death situations while
communications afterwards concern survivors, the living.

The emergency is not a finite point.

I have to disagree. Those directly involved in ANY emergency
would probably agree with me on that.

People who are injured during an
emergency can survive or expire during the aftermath. Who can say which
particular communications are critical except in retrospect?

I would say the individuals directly involved can say that very
definitely. Before this solo sailor's power ran out, he reported
being de-masted and adrift and that his power was running low.
To my mind that is about as direct a determination of an actual
emergency as can be...albeit my not being a mariner.

An airliner captatin reported an emergency when an air carrier's
nose wheel did not retract properly; the nose wheel assembly had
become turned from its natural position. The FAA accepted that
as an emergency, coordinated with Los Angeles airports for
emergency help, having fire engines standing by along with rescue
workers. TV news relayed it live for viewers. Spectacular safe
landing even though the nose wheel assembly caught fire. I don't
recall the number of passengers on board but at least a hundred
lives were directly at risk...all survived.

Health and
welfare comms are extremely important to those affected. It is important
work, whether involved in dire emergency or the less pressing aftermath.

Well, I was taking things in order of importance. When human life
is at stake, I put the priority on direct emergency communications
to save such life. Reporting on the results of aid/rescue
afterwards after that would, in my mind, be deemed secondary.
Yes, that secondary role is important for the emotional well-
being of relatives and friends via "health and welfare" comms,
but I still rank it secondary. Others may disagree.

My question has always been, who is kidding who on all
this "emergency work?" It's a serious question which
always seem to raise the emotional hackles of some.

There is a difference between Amateurs and those who are being paid for
their work. The amateurs are not being paid.

Yes, that is why the FCC titles Part 97 as "AMATEUR Radio
Service." :-)

Glad handing has sometimes been called the wages of volunteerism.

Good point! But, my mention was in regards to amateur radio
as a hobby, an avocation, something to be done in one's free
time. Is/was the amateur radio service organized as an
"emergency communications" primary role? Or was it organized
as an unpaid, personal, technological-oriented activity done
by individuals? I say the latter.

Too often some individuals blend the two organization-origins
with the "emergency" part rationalized as justifying the real
activity. I would say that is wrong. As responsible citizens
we all should help in some part with our communities in some
way. Amateur radio is only one way to help and then primarily
for rather extreme situations.

I respectfully have to say that if a ham says something about Amateur
radio contributions to emergency communications, there are some people
who automatically dismiss their statements.

Yes, there are. I've been called one of those! :-)

Fortunately one does not
have to engage in the activity as a ham. It is completely voluntary.

True. The state of California Auxiliary Communications Service
will accept anyone to help in emergency communications, licensed
or not, as long as they can demonstrate they know something about
communications. The California ACS considers ALL forms of
communications to be vital and ANY that survive extreme
emergencies would be used. Yes, having a license helps, whether
commercial or amateur (in my case both), but that license by
itself is not proof positive that an individual knows enough
about radio and less about wired communications.

Now, I've been accused of being geographically bigoted by
mentioning California and the Greater Los Angeles area as models
of emergency communications. For one thing, California is BIG
having over 10 percent of this nation's population, rivaling
the entire population of Canada. The state has weathered a
tsunami wiping out a small coastal city, many earthquakes, many
brush and timber firestorms, flooding, and damage from heavy
rainstorms. The L.A. emergency communications center was new
and operating for the 17 Jan 94 Northridge earthquake that
affected about 10 million people and killed 53 humans...it
worked through the efforts of organization, training, and
regular drilling of participants. The "infrastructure" didn't
fail and the cities making up this megalopolis survived.
There's quite enough history of successful operations through
very real emergencies available to anyone who bothers to look
and seriously consider adopting those plans and experiences for
their own communities. Examination of what has worked and what
hasn't can be considered as a form of volunteerism...

73, Len AF6AY