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?

It isn't a requirement in our area, but it is apparently strongly
encouraged. This is one of the situations that I refer to as
"Professional Hams". It is truly a profound change in emergency
operations. I am pretty convinced that the end strategy of all this is
that these groups expect to use amateur radio via their "professional
hams, and will not use hobbyists in the future.


Do you think it's a good idea?

Not particularly.

The nature of emergency work is that it only happens when there is an
emergency, so people have a lot to talk and think about in between
emergencies.

One of the things that emergency planners do best is impose a structure
on work and situations. The problem is that structure tends to go away
as soon as the emergency happens, just like battle plans.

It's why Ice trucks were left sitting in parking lots in another state
when they were needed in the Katrina aftermath, its why emergency groups
talk about interoperability, not realizing that the more structure they
put in place, the more points for failure there will be. We seem to
think that if "the boss" can see what everyone is doing and can directly
command them, then all will be well. When in reality, the folks on the
ground need to be able to function autonomously and be trusted to make a
decision.

So instead of having trained communicators on board - note that by
trained communicators, I mean people who know how to get comms across X
number of miles at Y o'clock, not those who just know what to say -
we'll be having professionals who happen to have a license.

Getting a Ham radio license is just an entry ticket. Are these new folks
going to be able to put together a repeater system when the hurricane
comes through and knocks out every other one in the stricken area? Will
they wonder why they can't talk to others in the same state on 20 meters
or that 75 meters seems so dead during the daytime? That is what Hams
have brought to the table over the years.

I know that mine is a minority opinion, hopefully I'm very wrong!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

This is one of the situations that I refer to as
"Professional Hams". It is truly a profound change in emergency
operations. I am pretty convinced that the end strategy of all this is
that these groups expect to use amateur radio via their "professional
hams, and will not use hobbyists in the future.

My experience does not support that, but I realize that it's MY
experience and that the situation in other areas may be different.
That's one of the reasons I started the thread; I am curious as to how
things are in other areas. I doubt that my area is typical, but I'm not
sure that "typical" even exists in this case.

I don't see our professional emergency management folks thinking that
they will replace the traditional ham radio recruit, the "hobbyists" if
you will. They seem to be more interested in getting licensed so that
they can work more effectively with the ham volunteers, and "tap in" to
the resources that are available. They see cases where hams are
providing something positive and they want to be able to take best
advantage of it.

Most of these professionals realize that the actual radios and the
technology, while important, isn't really the most important component
of what the ham radio community can provide. It's the people that
matter the most. Rather than trying to minimize that, the paid emcomm
folks that I have seen are trying to maximize it.

One of the things that emergency planners do best is impose a structure
on work and situations. The problem is that structure tends to go away
as soon as the emergency happens, just like battle plans.

With all due respect, having an effective battle plan is key to winning
a battle. They don't "go away", any more than an effective emergency
plan does. Sure, things seldom go exactly as the plan would suggest,
but the more planning is done in advance, the higher the probability
that things will go more smoothly.

Katrina was probably the ultimate example of how Mother Nature can throw
things at us that are beyond the threshold of our plans. Even so, the
organizations that had invested in planning came out much better than
the ones that had not.

It's why Ice trucks were left sitting in parking lots in another state
when they were needed in the Katrina aftermath, its why emergency groups
talk about interoperability, not realizing that the more structure they
put in place, the more points for failure there will be.

Plans are not perfect. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't plan. I am
not willing to concede that ice trucks sitting in the wrong place were a
result of planning. In fact, my conclusion would be the opposite -- if
the plan were better, the material would stand a better chance of
getting where it needed to be.

We seem to
think that if "the boss" can see what everyone is doing and can directly
command them, then all will be well. When in reality, the folks on the
ground need to be able to function autonomously and be trusted to make a
decision.

Sure, the folks on the ground need to be able to make decisions, but the
people trying to manage the big picture need to know what that decision
was so that they can integrate it into the response. It's not an ideal
situation when the folks on the ground MUST function autonomously
because they have not the slightest idea what their compatriots are
doing since they can't talk to them.

If I'm placed into the position of having to make a command decision,
I'm more comfortable making that decision if I have good information
upon which to base it. Without communications, that information is
often missing.

Getting a Ham radio license is just an entry ticket. Are these new folks
going to be able to put together a repeater system when the hurricane
comes through and knocks out every other one in the stricken area? Will
they wonder why they can't talk to others in the same state on 20 meters
or that 75 meters seems so dead during the daytime? That is what Hams
have brought to the table over the years.

And I hope that they continue to do so. I just don't accept the premise
that having paid members of the team as licensed amateurs changes that
situation. The more that the people who are managing the disaster know
about ham radio, the better they will be able to make use of the resource.

And who knows . . . some of the people might get hooked and actually
grow into full fledged ham contributors.

73, Steve KB9X

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:39:33 EST, Michael Coslo wrote:

It isn't a requirement in our area, but it is apparently strongly
encouraged. This is one of the situations that I refer to as
"Professional Hams". It is truly a profound change in emergency
operations.

The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
(JCAHO) - is now requiring that every Emergency Department ("ER") that
they accredit have ham radio as a backup communications system for
emergencies when other communication systems fail, and as a result,
the regional hospital system at which I volunteer is using licensed
staff people normally in the ER to be able to act until a volunteer or
licensed off-duty staff person can respond. As long as the responding
staff person is off duty, the "no pecuniary interest" test is
satisfied.

We are establishing a system-wide capability of both HF and VHF/UHF
ham stations at each hospital, clinic, and the Regional Emergency
Command Center. During the severe storms last December, ham radio was
the only link to two hospitals whose telephone, internet, cellphone,
and electric services were knocked out for several days, and as a
result, both medical and support staff people have been expressing an
interest in getting themselves and their family members licensed, if
only to be able to keep contact with their families and still be of
service when needed.

As far as being a requirement for employment, let me relate a parallel
situation with the commercial General Radio Telephone Operator License
that happened shortly after the FCC stopped requiring that license to
service land-mobile (2-way) radios. A local utility in San Francisco
continued to require that their radio technicians have that license as
a condition of employment (under union pressure, I understand) and
someone took that to the State Labor Board, which ruled that if the
FCC Rules did not require it, it was a non-job-related requirement on
the part of the employer and could not be enforced. The State of
California and the railroads got away with keeping the requirement
because they operated marine/aviation stations at airports and
bridges where the licensed-technician requirement still applied.

In sort, a ham license cannot be required for a job except as
permitted under the FCC Rules. Getting the employer(s) to accept this
is another story - someone must be willing (and have the deep pockets)
to take it to litigation if need be.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:39:33 EST, Michael Coslo wrote:

It isn't a requirement in our area, but it is apparently strongly
encouraged. This is one of the situations that I refer to as
"Professional Hams". It is truly a profound change in emergency
operations.

The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
(JCAHO) - is now requiring that every Emergency Department ("ER") that
they accredit have ham radio as a backup communications system for
emergencies when other communication systems fail, and as a result,
the regional hospital system at which I volunteer is using licensed
staff people normally in the ER to be able to act until a volunteer or
licensed off-duty staff person can respond. As long as the responding
staff person is off duty, the "no pecuniary interest" test is
satisfied.


And that is fits my description of the way Ham radio for Emcomms is
heading. If I was a supervisor, and in an emergency, I'm going to pick
the person who works for me instead of a possibly unknown quantity.

I've headed up some works using volunteers. You have to treat them a
lot differently, and many of those differences are solved by having a
paid person for whom you can issue direct orders to.

As for the "off duty" business, that one is quite easy to solve. If it
is a salaried employee, on and off duty time isn't always that clear anyhow.

I would be willing to wager an adult beverage that in 10 years, the
hobbyist ham involved in emcomms will be completely replaced by those
"off duty" professional hams. It's conjecture of course, but I've seen
the beginnings of that. And your above description certainly fits.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -