Steve Bonine wrote:
I would like to see other opinions on this issue, which came up in
passing in another group.

One of the participants there mentioned that a ham radio license has
been added as an employment condition for some of their professional
responders. Presumably the motivation is based on a desire to have a
known population of people who can use ham radio technology in a
disaster if nothing else is working.

I have two questions on this.

Is this a common situation? I hadn't heard of a formal requirement
until it was mentioned on the other forum, but a couple more people came
forward and said that it was in place in their area. Is it happening in
your area?

Not that I know of.

Do you think it's a good idea?

I wouldn't mind having a job that required me to be a ham, but being
required to have a ham license in addition to being trained for some
other field does, as others have pointed out, risk degrading the quality
of applicant.

I think what the emcomm managers _really_ want is a commercially
licensed emergency radio technician and communicator, but there's no
license for that. The problem with requiring a ham license is that
there's so much variability in the training and currency of hams, not to
mention their physical condition, that I don't think that having a ham
license is a reliable indicator of emcomm proficiency.

After all, _any_ municipal employee can be trained to operate a two-way
radio: what's required in an emergency is guys that can operate the
radio _and_ put up the antenna _and_ figure out which rigs can share a
power supply _and_ figure out which existing antennas are "close enough"
for the frequency needed _and_ get a CD-badged Gooneybox to communicate
with an FM radio. Long story short, I think requiring a ham license
involves an assumption that anyone with a license knows how to operate
and improvise in an emergency, and that's not true.

FWIW. YMMV.

73, Bill W1AC
(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)

Bill Horne wrote:

I think what the emcomm managers _really_ want is a commercially
licensed emergency radio technician and communicator, but there's no
license for that. The problem with requiring a ham license is that
there's so much variability in the training and currency of hams, not to
mention their physical condition, that I don't think that having a ham
license is a reliable indicator of emcomm proficiency.


Bingo! What has happened over the years is that radio communications
skills have been marginalized to such an extent that they overdid it.
The skill set that Hams bring to the emergency used to be shared by
professional radio ops. But the powers that be wanted highly simplified
systems that required no more electrical acumen than turning the radio
on and mashing the PTT button ended up meanining that no one knew much
about radio, and therefore needed someone who did to help.

Ask an Emcomm manager if they would rather have the "unpaid volunteer"
Ham or someone who actually worked for them doing comms, and I would be
surprised if anyone would prefer the Ham.

- 73 d eMike N3LI -

Bill Horne wrote:
Steve Bonine wrote:
I would like to see other opinions on this issue, which came up in
passing in another group.

One of the participants there mentioned that a ham radio license has
been added as an employment condition for some of their professional
responders. Presumably the motivation is based on a desire to have a
known population of people who can use ham radio technology in a
disaster if nothing else is working.

I have two questions on this.

Is this a common situation? I hadn't heard of a formal requirement
until it was mentioned on the other forum, but a couple more people
came forward and said that it was in place in their area. Is it
happening in your area?

Not that I know of.

Do you think it's a good idea?

I wouldn't mind having a job that required me to be a ham, but being
required to have a ham license in addition to being trained for some
other field does, as others have pointed out, risk degrading the quality
of applicant.

I think what the emcomm managers _really_ want is a commercially
licensed emergency radio technician and communicator, but there's no
license for that. The problem with requiring a ham license is that
there's so much variability in the training and currency of hams, not to
mention their physical condition, that I don't think that having a ham
license is a reliable indicator of emcomm proficiency.

After all, _any_ municipal employee can be trained to operate a two-way
radio: what's required in an emergency is guys that can operate the
radio _and_ put up the antenna _and_ figure out which rigs can share a
power supply _and_ figure out which existing antennas are "close enough"
for the frequency needed _and_ get a CD-badged Gooneybox to communicate
with an FM radio. Long story short, I think requiring a ham license
involves an assumption that anyone with a license knows how to operate
and improvise in an emergency, and that's not true.

FWIW. YMMV.

73, Bill W1AC
(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)


I have to strongly agree with my brother here. (Yes its come to this.
Its come to this. And wasn't it a long way down.) I'm deliberately
trying to prepare myself to be an effective emergency communicator and
I'll just go ahead and admit that it is a lot heavier going then I
initially anticipated. There is an awful lot to learn only some of
which is radio theory and practice. I'm part way through the ARRL
Emergency Communications Level I course and they have already devoted
two sections to subjects like the relationship with the served agency.
Some Hams have trouble with the idea that no one wants them to read
messages to each other any more. The folks who need our help in order
to help the actual victims want to sit down at their laptop, compose an
email and expect us to get it were it needs to go. One of the best
answers to limited training time is to use technologically based best
practice and apply it to the problem. An emergency manager will get a
lot more out of my Amateur TeleVision (ATV) signal then he / she will
ever get out of my verbal description of what I'm seeing. If they use a
VCR I can get a lot of windshield survey done very quickly. The people
responsible for supporting the response can get a lot more information
out of that video by syncing it with an APRS position record of were I
was then they'd very get out of brief verbal reports. I hear some
fellow Amateurs moaning that "they just want appliance operators." Cash
your reality check guys that's what they've always wanted from us. It's
only the sophistication of the appliances and the expectations for what
is possible using them that are changing.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

Tom Horne wrote:


I have to strongly agree with my brother here. (Yes its come to this.
Its come to this. And wasn't it a long way down.)

And the camera pans the stand in stunt man...... ;^)

some snippage

was then they'd very get out of brief verbal reports. I hear some
fellow Amateurs moaning that "they just want appliance operators." Cash
your reality check guys that's what they've always wanted from us. It's
only the sophistication of the appliances and the expectations for what
is possible using them that are changing.


Yeah, mostly. The issue that I see is this.

The Emcomm managers go to the school of "Just tell me what to do". Not
really a bad idea. No manager should have to know the technical details
of say an ATV repeater, although a little knowledge might be good, as in
when the conditions prevent proper operation.

What I see as a possible problem is that as the hobbyist Hams are phased
out, these technical innovations might not filter down to practice as
easily. They might not be operated by people who know what to do when
the wheels fall off. It's all transparent as long as we push the button
on that appliance and it works. But when it doesn't??

I should probably take this moment to not that I am NOT "anti Emcomm".
In fact, as my retirement comes around, I intend to volunteer as a way
to pay back to the community. I'm hoping that there will be a place for
the hobbyist and technically savvy Ham to do that.

but I do have some concerns.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:27:28 EST, Michael Coslo wrote:

I'm hoping that there will be a place for
the hobbyist and technically savvy Ham to do that.

C'mon to our hospital. We have several such ham volunteers (including
me) and at least two staff people that fit that very description. For
the non-technical folks, we have an operations chart which says that
if Channel A fails, go to Channel B and here's how you do it. It's up
to us techies to make sure that those channels are available where
they are needed. I look up to their medical and hospital procedural
knowledge as much as they look up to our radio knowledge. I learned
an awful lot during the several shifts that I pulled during the
December storms.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 05:37:43 EST, Bill Horne wrote:

I think what the emcomm managers _really_ want is a commercially
licensed emergency radio technician and communicator, but there's no
license for that.

Actually, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials
(APCO) does have training courses and certificates for just those
specialties, and it's up to the Comm Director to go forward with those
things and get the staff trained.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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