Brand new, NTC-approved, inexpensive handheld radios!

[JoeTomasone]

I've just been notified that these radios have been removed from the compliant list over concerns regarding the lab results of the receiver section.

The good news is that radios already in service may be used for the lifetime of the radio.

It was good while it lasted.

[a2capt]

One mans fiefdom .. yay. That's going to be hard to control/track.

"radios in service may be used for the lifetime of the radio".. so how do they know, because not every radio ... how to say this.

I have a call sign, I don't need to apply for it. But I get additional radios ..  I used one radio what I got the call sign, i've since moved on. There is not a requirement that we keep submitting serial numbers.

[SarDragon]

One mans fiefdom .. yay. That's going to be hard to control/track.

"radios in service may be used for the lifetime of the radio".. so how do they know, because not every radio ... how to say this.

I have a call sign, I don't need to apply for it. But I get additional radios ..  I used one radio what I got the call sign, i've since moved on. There is not a requirement that we keep submitting serial numbers.

But now you've opened the barn door! 

[Eclipse]

I have a call sign, I don't need to apply for it. But I get additional radios ..  I used one radio what I got the call sign, i've since moved on. There is not a requirement that we keep submitting serial numbers.

So...ethics?

I will say that, as usual, NHQ can't even issue clear rules - those grandfathered radios aren't any more compliant
because members bought them.

Just make decisions and stick to them instead of avoiding the conversations!

[JeffDG]

I have a call sign, I don't need to apply for it. But I get additional radios ..  I used one radio what I got the call sign, i've since moved on. There is not a requirement that we keep submitting serial numbers.

So...ethics?

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when nobody is watching.

[JoeTomasone]

I have a call sign, I don't need to apply for it. But I get additional radios ..  I used one radio what I got the call sign, i've since moved on. There is not a requirement that we keep submitting serial numbers.

So...ethics?

I will say that, as usual, NHQ can't even issue clear rules - those grandfathered radios aren't any more compliant
because members bought them.

Just make decisions and stick to them instead of avoiding the conversations!

Assuming that the "allegation" of not being up to snuff on the receive side is true - it only harms the user of the radio.   Presumably this is much more palatable than having however many members quit in disgust.    This isn't much different than permitting the Pre-1-Jan-2006-Standard radios to be grandfathered in for life.   It doesn't bother the NTIA because the spectral standards are only enforced in the event of interference; which resolution would go against the non-compliant radio user. 

[Eclipse]

Assuming that the "allegation" of not being up to snuff on the receive side is true - it only harms the user of the radio.

Irrelevant once the decision has been made.

[tonyairplane]

This is what we were sent and it doesn't say anything about lab results, just specs on paper.  Do they even have a lab or anyone that can test radios (such as the ARRL does)?

"Hello All,

  Because this will affect your members and likely prove to be controversial, I thought I would let you know of a change that was just made to the compliance evaluation status of the two Wouxun handheld radios: the KG-UV3X and KG-UV6X.

  These two radios had been evaluated as "Compliant", but CAP Headquarters has decided that, because of problems with the submitted specifications, and specifically the lack of factory or factory agent publication of those specifications, they are now evaluated as "non-compliant".
  Because this may cause a hardship for those members who had acquired one of these models, it was also decided that those radios placed into the CAP system during the time we had them evaluated as "compliant" may continue to utilize them.

  The notes for each model in the compliance lists have been changed to reflect this status change.

73 DE Hartley Gardner
Deputy National Comm Officer"

[Eclipse]

This is what we were sent and it doesn't say anything about lab results, just specs on paper.  Do they even have a lab or anyone that can test radios (such as the ARRL does)?

Depends who the "they" is.  We have plenty of members who are advanced radio technicians and engineers with
access to the test equipment.   I know of two personally who could the tests in their basement.

[tonyairplane]

"They" is NTC.  "They" make these decisions without actually testing the gear.

To be clear, I was responding to JoeTomasone who said "I've just been notified that these radios have been removed from the compliant list over concerns regarding the lab results of the receiver section."

It is pretty clear from the email that the NTC sent out that they didn't do any testing.

Certainly a lot of us that have GROLs and access to test equipment (both of which I have) could test them, but what NTC says, goes, right?

[a2capt]

The gist of my comment was not so much the ethics battle from the members side, but the silliness from the NHQ side.

I get that they can't set a precedent by listing non-compliant equipment. However, if what is in this thread earlier, that what was stated with these models wasn't any different than other equipment marked as compliant, why are they zeroing in on this one? Is the supplied documentation within the specs? Have they run tests? Have they run tests on -ANYTHING- else on the list?

Does the list say something along the lines of "This used to be compliant but we decided it wasn't, so if you used one before we changed our mind, you can keep using it, but don't buy any more."? No. It's listed as if it were never acceptable. So what does a newly minted Communications Officer/Staff member that's on the ball do when he sees a member using one, and -the only- thing they see is "NO" and "NO" in red. No clause about it once being compliant but we changed our minds because someone got a bug up their rear end about it, zeroed in on this one and raised issue.

I suspect they'll not change the page to reflect that, because they would look silly to an auditor, or someone from the outside that says, "you say you're holding up the standard, you say these are not compliant, but you're allowing people to use them anyway"

What's the difference between adding more, and not. How does that impact the system in our structure?

Back to the radios that require the Sherpa's to program them.

[Eclipse]

but what NTC says, goes, right?

Yep.

A lot of government "certification" is like this - you publish the spec and assume compliance until a question is raised.

[Eclipse]

Does the list say something along the lines of "This used to be compliant but we decided it wasn't, so if you used one before we changed our mind, you can keep using it, but don't buy any more."? No. It's listed as if it were never acceptable. So what does a newly minted Communications Officer/Staff member that's on the ball do when he sees a member using one, and -the only- thing they see is "NO" and "NO" in red. No clause about it once being compliant but we changed our minds because someone got a bug up their rear end about it, zeroed in on this one and raised issue.

He says "no".

From there, it's up to the member to prove he's grandfathered.  If neither the DC or member know about the grandfather. end of conversation.

[tonyairplane]

Have they run tests? Have they run tests on -ANYTHING- else on the list?

From exchanges that I have had with them over the past couple of years, it doesn't appear that they test anything. They go by the manufacturers' spec sheets and advertisements.

[a2capt]

He says "no".

From there, it's up to the member to prove he's grandfathered.  If neither the DC or member know about the grandfather. end of conversation.

..and that's my point. The other equipment is indicated in such a way that you may very well find a unit that was put into operation prior to the date, so don't be surprised.

But these? Nope. The record has been changed as if it never happened.

I literally ordered one, and it's sitting on the desk. It's setup to go, but I have not actually used it for anything CAP yet, other than scratch the squelch on my other radio to make sure it's working. This was just a day before I saw that message posted here, and if one wants to split hairs about it, that message posted here isn't even an official channel for purposes of that kind of communication.

It's like communications by sideband. Similar to how CAWG, during a Commanders Call, decided they were going to ban Google Glass from any CAP events, and two other similar items of note, but have posted no communications in written form that can be referenced. 

Write it down, publish it, in the proper channel, via the proper procedure, or it doesn't exist. What good is it if the average member who wants to research can't get the straight poop. Or that average member sees a whole pack of folks using these neat small radios, notices one on the table, makes note of the model number, and goes to order one. "they're using a bunch of them, the Wing Comm director is there, too." Must be good!

Or .. he goes after noting the model, and as far as he can tell that radio was never authorized ever, because that is the way the list reflects it now. So then he's left to question, "why are these people blatantly using that equipment, after all the bantering and browbeating that we've heard on compliant equipment" .. "and even the Wing director is condoning it, since he's in on it too! I guess the regulations don't mean a thing to them".

[ReCAP]

Once again, the regs say:
CAPR100-1 6-1 b. Radio equipment used by CAP on federal frequencies must comply with all standards of the NTIA. Determination of compliance is based on the specifications of the radio published by the manufacturer. CAP maintains a list of radio equipment evaluated as compliant. This list can be found via eServices.

The email I received from wing says "...because of problems with the submitted specifications, and specifically the lack of factory or factory agent publication of those specifications..."

In other words, they are following the regs. 

The email says "those radios placed into the CAP system during the time we had them evaluated as "compliant" may continue to utilize them" yet the NHQ (non) compliant list says "Members who purchased this model prior to 18 March 2014 may continue to utilize it in the CAP system."  So there's something to fight about...

[Brad]

This is why I'm glad my Wing has a form for tracking callsigns and radios that a user is using. When I got my Wouxun I submitted a Wing form to update my file, so if I have to I can prove that my radio is grandfathered.

[JoeTomasone]

Once again, the regs say:
CAPR100-1 6-1 b. Radio equipment used by CAP on federal frequencies must comply with all standards of the NTIA. Determination of compliance is based on the specifications of the radio published by the manufacturer. CAP maintains a list of radio equipment evaluated as compliant. This list can be found via eServices.

The email I received from wing says "...because of problems with the submitted specifications, and specifically the lack of factory or factory agent publication of those specifications..."

In other words, they are following the regs. 

The email says "those radios placed into the CAP system during the time we had them evaluated as "compliant" may continue to utilize them" yet the NHQ (non) compliant list says "Members who purchased this model prior to 18 March 2014 may continue to utilize it in the CAP system."  So there's something to fight about...

I have had discussions with both the National Comm folks and with Powerwerx.  Here's the facts:


1. A CAP Major (unnamed), who is friends with one of the Powerwerx folks asked him to get the Wouxun NTIA certified so that CAP would be able to use the radio.

2. Powerwerx pays for the lab to do the test according to the required standard (EIA/TIA 603C).

3. NHQ accepts the lab report, but requires that (per 100-1) that either Wouxun or Powerwerx publishes the specifications - essentially so that there is a statement from the manufacturer or the importer/agent saying that the radio meets these specs.   They add it to the compliant list pending said publication.

4. The publication is not forthcoming for some time.

5. NHQ decides to remove the radio from the compliance list.

6. I have a copy of the lab report and the radio DOES meet the NTIA specifications.   (I have attached it)


I spoke to the gentleman at Wouxun today.  As far as he is concerned, he is done with CAP, and doesn't care if anyone gets to buy this radio anymore; NHQ staff have frustrated him to the point that he is just done.

I have filed statements of non-concurrence over this (as FLWG/DC) and plan to take it to the National Commander if I need to.   WE NEED THIS RADIO, or something of similar quality at a similar price point.

[Brad]

NTC making a mountain out of a molehill. What else is new?

Press on, Major; based on what you posted it should be a non-issue.

[Eclipse]

So Powerwerx failed to publish the spec as promised and required.

That means only one of two things.  Powerwerx didn't care to do it (for whatever reason, which is their prerogative), or their lab results were not consistent
with their production runs.

That's on them, not CAP.

The only CAP failing is that they should have waited until things were properly published and documented before adding it to the list.