Some good points. Do you really find that it that common to have wannabee cop types who are involved with emergency communications support? I have personally seen almost none of this over a 40+ year period of being involved with these kinds of activities.
Could you get more specific on the software you mention? Due to the movement toward Incident Command and the National Incident Management System, there will be less jargon used, even by the professional protective services personnel as we move more toward plain language requirements. I you have had some (or all) of the ARRL Emergency Communications Courses, you know that the main thing is to provide support with whatever communications medium is available and works the best for the given task. For initial dire emergency situations and tactical communications voice is the clear choice if you have it. Whether by telephone, VoIP, VHF, HF ... whatever is most appropriate. CW is much less useful, since there are fewer and fewer hams who can even operate the mode, and it is much slower for tactical, but if it is the only communication medium you have, then of course you would use it. While our digital communications capability comes to the fore when there are larger amounts of messaging to send, with the advanced technology, this will become less and less important for the radio amateur as we can expect government to incrementally improve their capabilities due to increased use of satellite phones, WiMax links, etc. There are cases where local messaging can be useful via VHF packet. For regional use it is much more difficult in our region as our VHF digital paths are mostly gone now as the system continues to degrade. There may be some use for the NTS/Digital (Winlink) system although we do not have this at our region level, much less our section level. However, this system can only handle short messages such as H&W. Another possibility is Winlink 2000 (not to be confused with Winlink). Although it is primarily internet based and designed for casual non-emergency use, it may allow for VHF links in a few limited areas and HF for longer distances where you are desiring to send directly to someone with e-mail. This assumes e-mail is working at their location. The Linux based PSKmail system might be a better fit due to the much lower cost for HF connections but it has a relatively slow data throughput, but Winlink 2000 may be better for the less knowledgeable radio amateurs who desire accessing stations well outside their immediate vicinity and using a common e-mail address. The one area that has been the most frustrating for me is the near total disinterest in using HF digital modes for emergency messaging. I used to think that some of our new robust modes would be very useful for connections between stations that were unable to connect on VHF due to distance or terrain issues. Also, from local EOC to state EOC. Part of the problem may be that the majority of radio amateurs that participate in emergency communications do not have HF licenses. Another is that the folks who are interested in digital HF communications are not the same ones who want to do emergency communications. At least that seems to be true in much of our area. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: >There are varying versions of just what emergency communications are all >about. To some it is the "boat sinking" SOS but to others it is a complex >system of message handling with file attachments, etc There are a >considerable amounts of well intended hams that have an obscure obsession >with playing Firefighter ,Police Officer, EMT, FEMA worker , etc etc. This >manifests itself with hams wearing hardhats and using military lingo for >"traffic" handling, much like kids playing "cowboys and Indians" decades >ago. They have developed very effective software that provides important >communications but it is buried within layers of unnecessary terminology >designed to make it fit their fantasy of being a legit " first responder". >The result is confusion among hams that don't quite "get" the unnecessary >jargon, and dismissive criticism of these hams by the jargon camouflaged >"emcomm" hams . The desire to be important emergency communicators has >produced a system often used as a primary emergency communication system , >however DHS asked only for a system that was secondary or "redundant" >communications. These are unnecessarily complex system to "join" and, as a >result , will likely have limited efficiency when (if?) "ship sinking" >"plane crashed" scenarios present themselves. The PACTOR/Packet system will >be useful for non-emergency situations, by that I mean " "urgent" but not >"emergency". For example: Logistical information to support emergency >efforts, supplies/hazardous materials instructions, requests for >"push-packs", etc. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
