As the sponsor of the HFDEC yahoogroup (Hams for Disaster and Emergency Communication), I try to stay current on what is happening. A lot depends upon the kinds of disasters that you are exposed to. Our area had a 1000 year flood event last August. As of this past week we had something very similar with nearly 12 inches of rain over a 36 hour period causing widespread flooding in the MN/IA/WI Tri-State region. But like the last time, we did NOT have a communications emergency in SW Wisconsin (last year SE MN did have CE issues), and other than some power failures and some intermittent land line phones/internet, there was mostly physical damage in low lying areas with other areas having minimal problems.
I was called out on Sunday to activate the amateur side of the County EOC although we eventually stood down later in the day. The advantage Emergency Managers have with radio amateurs is their ability to draw upon outside volunteers, whether formal, such as through ARES/RACES, or informal through other associations. At least in our area, the trend is to use radio amateurs as a pool of workers to perform non communications functions, particularly Disaster Assessment. This started well over a decade ago, when my wife and I both went through the American Red Cross DAT (Disaster Assessment Team) training so we had a basic understanding of how to do it and how the information is used to compile the dollar figures you see with disasters. In fact, Judy and I spent most of Tuesday working in the field and performing such an assessment, although we found no dwelling damage in the area we were assigned. The trend is to openly accept volunteers these kinds of assignments. Radio knowledge may be useful in some areas that may not have cell phone coverage. Of course repeater coverage is not universally available either:( With a very short "training" session, the volunteers are sent out to perform their tasks. The protocols? The ARES/RACES leadership at the state level wants only Winlink 2000 as THE digital solution. It may be getting some use in more populated areas, but we are very limited with access in our area with the nearest Telpac quite a few miles away and if that should fail, there would be no other access point reachable. Even that access requires being at a high point to just make it. Needless to say, you don't build a successful emergency network with that technology in our area. The local EC has attempted to have a demonstration of Winlink 2000's capabilities to a quickly set up Telpac within a mile or so of the EOC, but on both occasions, the system did not work. (This is a highly qualified network specialist who set it up so it apparently is some kind of interference or other undetermined problem). The more rural you get, it seems the less chance you have of any digital solutions for emergency use. Most of what we do is strictly tactical voice and that is 99% 2 meter FM. There is a good reason for that since 100% of our participants in our club and those who are member of the ARES/RACES group have 2 meter FM and almost no other hams use HF for emergency use. I have been the only liasion to the Section level although we should have a couple other hams who could do it. My wife is the only other ham with HF capability in her vehicle in our county. Over many years I have tried to promote various digital modes, but there is actually much, much, less interest today on the local level than 20 years ago! Back then almost anyone who was even moderately active had a basic packet radio connection. And we had extensive intrastate and interstate networks. Those days will never come back, therefore it is my view that the only possible way to build a network is to have systems that can go farther over a wider area. Packet can not do this since it is a mode requiring good to very good signals. It is my view, that we must try and build systems that are totally impervious to single point failure. NBEMS is the only system that can theoretically do this at this time. But is it getting much traction? Winlink 2000 may have improved with more RF paths rather than its initial design of relying almost totally on the internet, but it is difficult to find out much about the topology. It is not even clear to me as to how RMSpacket is an improvement over the Telpac design. Perhaps someone here knows the specific improvements? The main difference that I have read on the promotional material is that RMSpacket requires 32 bit Windows. That is why Telpac systems are still being used if the software/hardware is older, e.g., Windows 98 and can not even run RMSpacket. RF access on the HF side of Winlink 2000 is dependent upon the expensive proprietary SCS modem so there may be limited availability of the HF side. I am not aware of anyone in my local area (100+ mile radius) that has such capability. We can't even get hams to consider using 2 meter SSB digital modes either:( In fact, other than RTTY for a few nets, and for contests, and a few PSK31 operators for casual Q's, there may not be any real increase of digital modes, but rather, it is often the same operators trying different modes. Which is not a bad thing, since we find out which modes seem to perform well and which ones do not. But are our numbers really growing? I still like FAE 400 the most for a connected mode with emergency potential, but because it is only available on Multipsk, has limited appeal. The main thing that I look for is the ability to set up an ad hoc server location as needed so that you have the option of handling traffic into NTS or if known, even e-mail or other routing. The only system that can do this at this time is NBEMS. If FAE400 and FAE2000 were available on NBEMS, you could combine the strongest features that seem to be out there at this time. Other thoughts? 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > Aside from PACTOR, NBEMS and ALE, which has seemed to be moderately > active , what is the latest in emergency communication protocols ? I > did manage to use AIRMAIL a few years ago, just to see if it could > work. I vaguely recall something recently that said they have revised > some aspects of Winlink and eliminated Telpac, is that correct? If > so, what did they replace it with? > > Andy K3UK > >
