I think one of the problems that the emergency
service agencies have run into is reflected in posts to this reflector over
the past week or so,
with great theoretical discussions as to how many
bauds will fit on the head of a pin, rather than a practical solution to
communications problems.
It would seem that the ARRL leadership has also
taken this "big picture" approach, losing credibility with the served
agencies.
Instead of building strong relationships
during non-emergent times, they go on and on about what could be
rather than what realistic service could be offered.
A wise old emergency planner once said that the
last thing that should happen are agencies exchanging business cards at the
scene of a disaster. Of course hams will be told that they are not needed when
they show up at an emergency, since it is lilkely that none of these agencies
have
ever trained with these same hams, and therefore
have no idea what service they can provide. An overweight, middle-aged man
wearing sandals and a HT clipped to his belt is not a confidence
builder.
Our role in an emergency is to be the duct tape
which connects these agencies together during comms overload or comms failure.
We do that by working with these agencies,
providing information as to what we can do and demonstrating this at every
opportunity in training sessions. We should be working hard to make
inroads to these agencies. Rather than talking in techonese about the
kazillion dollar modems we need and the rate at which we can talk, we need to
talk in their terms, posing "what if" questions and solutions and being able
to show how we can operate when systems fail. Our solutions have to be simple,
and effective.
Finally, this is directed to the "owner " of this
reflector......... why not start up another called policies and predictions,
and take all these long winded arguments elsewhere this is like a
debating society run amok!! Right now we have to wade through lots of theory
to find a few kernels of practical wisdom !
my 2 cents
John
VE5MU
