Communications specialty track

[jimmydeanno]

Right, that's my point.  So instead of saying, "Go to the next SAREX and do comm there and we'll count that as participating in a comm exercise" we're saying, "Don't do anything, we'll just sign it off."  It just seems strange to me that you could have someone actually do something comm related and get more experience to fulfill the requirement but instead chose to just ignore it because that parts required later...

My wing hold comm exercises [I believe] annually and they don't appear to be anything other than what the comm guys would do at a SAREX except there isn't any traffic to pass. 

[lordmonar]

This has always been one of the problems with Comm in CAP.

The Comm System is outside of ES in general even though we ES types are really the major customer.

Arajca is right that many wing DC's don't count ES particapation to count toward "their" comm exercise requirments.

But if those same wing DC's are not doing their "manditory" weekly comm net checks and "manditory" comm exercises then we are in a pickle.

Either way...contact wing DC and find out what they plan to do for/about you.

If nothing else...get the wing DC to approve you to hold your own comm exercise.  They are not that hard to do...takes maybe 2 hours tops.  E-mail all the other squadrons of when and on what freq you will hold the COMMEX and then get on the air and pass messages for an hour.

The Comm Specialty track needs a lot of work.  Hopfully with the ES side of comm getting a rework maybe the Specilty track side of it will too. (or maybe just go away.  )

[RedFox24]

+1

Its been a while for me, but isn't the Tech approved at the Squadron Commander or has that changed?  The Senior and Master by the Wing DC? Before you ask for a waver, consult the Wing DC, through proper channels, as to what they constitute as an exercise that they sanction.  You might find out it might be something as simple as participation in a net. 

The Comm Specialty track needs a lot of work.  Hopfully with the ES side of comm getting a rework maybe the Specialty track side of it will too. (or maybe just go away.  )

Lets hope it doesn't go away. ............it is to important for it to go away!  If anything we need more members in Comms. 

[lordmonar]

Lets hope it doesn't go away. ............it is to important for it to go away!  If anything we need more members in Comms. 

ES comms...but not the comm that the specialty track covers.  We get plenty of opprotunity to do the ES side of Comms....but the wing/regional/national comm nets and comm exercise?  I just don't see a lot of announcements for those.

[Gunner C]

But we need comms to be a support function for ES, not a mission in and of itself.

[arajca]

The problem with making comms a support function of ES is that other missions in CAP need comms support as well. And, since all three missions are supposed to be equal, comms needs to be able to support all three on an equal footing, not ES primarily and others if time allows.

An interesting aside - there is a movement starting to elevate incident communications to the section level, outside of, and equal to,  Logistics and Operations. This is not a CAP movement, but a movement within the emergency services communications and NIMS communities.

[wuzafuzz]

Agree.  Communications should not be limited to ES support.  Of course ES is the most obvious need.  It would be interesting to hear about non-ES activities supported by CAP communications.  At least the ones that aren't OPSEC issues. 

Or should this be a separate thread?

[JoeTomasone]

Agree.  Communications should not be limited to ES support.  Of course ES is the most obvious need.  It would be interesting to hear about non-ES activities supported by CAP communications. 

Simple - almost any non-ES activity - Encampments, O-flights, airshows, bivouacs, and even Squadron meetings in some cases.   

[RiverAux]

This is really not much different than our aviation program.  The primary use of our planes and pilots are for ES, but they also provide support for both cadet programs and AE as well as for general CAP business. 

However, outside of ES, our Comm program doesn't seem to have much purpose.  It certainly isn't necessary for routine CAP business.  But, I don't think the current setup is so bad that it needs to change. 

[JoeTomasone]

However, outside of ES, our Comm program doesn't seem to have much purpose.  It certainly isn't necessary for routine CAP business.  But, I don't think the current setup is so bad that it needs to change.

Huh?   Comms are most certainly used for routine CAP business - just not all aspects of it and not all the time.

And, as stated, comms are used for lots of non-ES activities.

[RiverAux]

I've been a CAP senior for over a decade in several different wings and worked on staff on several levels and was a squadron commander.  I have not once heard of any important message being passed through the radio system.  I would go so far as to say that using the comm system for anything other than ES and those places to do regular net check-ins, would be unusual, rather than routine. 

I'll take your word for it that some regular CAP business may go on using the Comm system, but as a percentage of the total volume of messages about CAP business (using any medium) it has to be miniscule.  That again makes it unusual, rather than routine. 

I know the above sounds negative, but I believe it is accurate.  That doesn't mean I don't like the comm system, or that I don't believe that it can be useful in non-ES situations.  We need the system and people trained in its use and if things like comm exercises help, I'm all for that.   

[RADIOMAN015]

I've been a CAP senior for over a decade in several different wings and worked on staff on several levels and was a squadron commander.  I have not once heard of any important message being passed through the radio system.  I would go so far as to say that using the comm system for anything other than ES and those places to do regular net check-ins, would be unusual, rather than routine. 

I know the above sounds negative, but I believe it is accurate.  That doesn't mean I don't like the comm system, or that I don't believe that it can be useful in non-ES situations.  We need the system and people trained in its use and if things like comm exercises help, I'm all for that.   

I tend to agree with you, especially with the use of cellphones & text messaging.  IF you have the signal & appropriate equipment all of the squadron's administrative, cadet & aerospace coordination activities can be supported.  ES wise, of course we need VHF short range comms BUT at times even cellphones can be used especially for initial alerting & "ground comms" with CAP aircraft that are based/landed at other than the mission base location.

HOWEVER, our dependency on cellphone & the landline telephone system, including the internet could easily be affected by natural disaster and potentially even terrorist activity.  From a communications management standpoint we should ensure we have an alternative communications network (CAP as well as other radio communications relay "partners") that can pass critical messages.  Our goal should be to exercise this on at least a semi annual basis (personally I'd like to see it exercised on a quarterly basis).

Right now with the VHF rebanding/reprogramming & repeater equipment replacement, many wing comm staffs are stretched to the max.  Perhaps other communicators need to step up to the plate and offer to conduct such exercises.
RM   

[ol'fido]

I do the majority of my radio work each year at the Summer Encampment. For three years the encampment was held at the Marseilles Training Center(IL ARNG facility) about 1 hr. SW of Chicago metro area. Most cell phones were very spotty in their coverage and Internet access was severly limited. Radio commo supported much of our ops and thanks to the Comm school we had a lot of well trained cadet and senior communicators to keep us in touch.

Comms does NOT just support ES.

[RiverAux]

HOWEVER, our dependency on cellphone & the landline telephone system, including the internet could easily be affected by natural disaster and potentially even terrorist activity.  From a communications management standpoint we should ensure we have an alternative communications network (CAP as well as other radio communications relay "partners") that can pass critical messages.  Our goal should be to exercise this on at least a semi annual basis (personally I'd like to see it exercised on a quarterly basis).

wouldn't disagree with this a bit. 

[SarDragon]

Regarding cell phones vs. radios -

I did a UDF mission some time back without a radio, depending only a cell phone to communicate with the other folks involved. NEVER AGAIN! On top of the spotty coverage, I could only talk to one person at a time, and not at all with the aircrew.

This is the primary handicap of not using radios - the inability to get all the team players in the comm loop at the same time. With a cell phone, you can only get one-on-one, or if you're lucky, a three-way conversation. With a radio, everyone can talk to everyone else, and information gets shared quickly and efficiently.

YMMV.

[arajca]

It's kind of funny - the same folks who complain about having to take radio training and boldly state that they'll never use it because they have their trusty cell-phone, are the first one to complain when they are told they can't have a radio because they haven't gone through the training and get REAL upset when you quote them back to themselves.

[Gunner C]

There's several different layers to comms
Internet (email) comms
Telephone comms
Cell Phone comms
FM comms
HF comms

Internet and telephone are used daily with cell phones a close third. 

Cell phones are versatile - can be used in the field or on the move.   Of course, there's sometimes spotty coverage which leaves us to use FM comms.

FM has great coveage in many wings.  But repeaters rely on commercial power and this can be interrupted during emergencies when you need it most.

HF has technical limitations during the day and others at night.  When used well, it can fill in the gaps left by the others.  Unfortunately, there's not enough HF gear to go around.  It's a lost (or being lost) art.  I don't think that we're as good at using it as we were 30 years ago.

I guess what I'm saying is that comms is a layered concept that includes all means, not just radios.  If anything, comms should be expanded to include IT.

[billford1]

Every year my Squadron works to help with traffic duty at a local air show. We are supported by many Cadets. There are many things to consider with CAP involvement in any event where CAP members come in contact with the public. We station members at various locations where needed at the air show. When a group of teams is separated across a large area a well organized communications net allows for efficient tasking, and helps assure the safety of all participants. There's the inevitable occasional encounter with an impatient motorist, or someone who may question the role of the uniformed traffic help coordinator. I train and brief all the Cadets about staying in contact with the duty officer. One incident with a drunk visitor could have turned out differently for the Cadet who would have been isolated if he had not had the means to request help by radio with a situation that was not noticeable to other members who were within visual range. Those who come in contact with Cadets in such a venue will notice that help is within reach by radio. Some visitors have problems with heat or other medical problems. When CAP participants need to be relieved there's no wait for relief  that might not be timely without linkage to the relievers. When I was at an encampment in 2003 the leadership saw the same need for communications for the same reasons and acquired FRS radios which were very helpful before the ISRs were available.

[Eclipse]

However, outside of ES, our Comm program doesn't seem to have much purpose.  It certainly isn't necessary for routine CAP business.  But, I don't think the current setup is so bad that it needs to change.

Huh?   Comms are most certainly used for routine CAP business - just not all aspects of it and not all the time.

And, as stated, comms are used for lots of non-ES activities.

Define "routine CAP business", because its certainly not the primary channel of downstream information from higher HQ that it may have been into the early '90's.  That's email today.

I agree that, just like the airplanes, comm assets can and should be used for a lot more than ES, but, just like the airplanes, the reason we get them issued to us is ES. 

[Eclipse]

I guess what I'm saying is that comms is a layered concept that includes all means, not just radios.  If anything, comms should be expanded to include IT.

Absolutely - this notion that teams and staff should turn in/off their cel phones "just because they might not work in a real emergency" is silly.

While I agree that a robust VHF-based system should be the main channel in most mission scenarios, "whatever gets the message through" should be the rule of thumb.  Cel phone, text message, internet, VHF, ISF, carrier pigeon, etc.

Few real-world situations ever actually approach the Armageddon scenario that takes cel phones and the internet out of service for very long.  In MS the text and data layers were up consistently, and voice service was about the same as you'd normally expect in the rural areas we were working.
AT&T had a sat truck onsite for additional voice service.

Ditto for KY - we had voice service in the EOC and wireless internet provided by a sat truck in the parking lot (brought, I was told, by FEMA).  If the scenario involves no satellites, I'm likely more worried about protecting my own family from the zombies than out w/ CAP.

We need to b prepared w/ backup systems and power, but we should use anything with a dial tone as needed.