Actually I was replying to Joe's comment regarding "The incident command function may not be > done from the comm van."
mike At 03:40 PM 01/05/2005 -0600, you wrote: >But now you're comparing apples to oranges. > >He was originally talking about having the repeater in a comm van. Comm vans >(& trailers) are intended to be mobile and placed either AT or very NEAR the >problem area. You are talking about putting a relay at or near the problem >area & having the comm CENTER (not the comm van) back at the long established >headquarters location. > >------ Original Message ------ >Received: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:36:24 AM CST >From: "Mike Perryman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Mobile Repeaters? > > > > > Exactly the case when the nut flew a plane into the Pentagon. The Incident > > Command Center was at the salvation Army Headquarters a number of miles > > away... right next door to a fire station on VHF high-split. It desensed > > the 2m receiver there. I would guess because of the low signal strength >from > > the use of handheld radios at the impact site. Comms were virtually > > impossible. Until we put a portable commo trailer (now in my back yard, > > donated by AK1E) in the parking lot of the Pentagon with a 110 watts out to > > the antenna. Then the handheld radios could be reduced to a couple hundred > > mils... which also greatly extended battery life. And the repeater had > > enough "juice" to punch through the adjacent fire station without causing >IX > > problems. We also had the Incident Command reduce his output to eliminate > > IX to the fire station. Things went from no-comm to near ideal!! > > > > Not really sure why Incident Command was located remotely... most likely > > politics. Haney showed up the next day for pictures and the PR > > opportunity... along with the SEC. > > > > But there are sometimes good (necessary?) reasons to employ a portable > > repeater... > > > > 73 > > Mike Perryman > > www.k5jmp.us > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 6:33 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mobile Repeaters? > > > > > > > > > > --- JOHN MACKEY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That seems like a ridiculous idea to put a repeater > > > in the comm van. > > > > Not really. The incident command function may not be > > done from the comm van. The comm van may have simplex > > coverage to the units, but the incident commander may > > be in a bad Rf location. The repeater, if used > > properly, can be an asset to that person. > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Perryman Cavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Consulting Engineers http://www.cmdconsulting.com 7839 Ashton Avenue K5JMP Manassas, VA 20109 USA (703) 392-9090; (703) 392-9559 fax; DC Line (202) 332-0110 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> 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/
