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