Ground Team Radio Equipment Table of Allowance Modification/Equipment Waivers?

[RADIOMAN015]

As most of you know, generally ground teams are suppose to have 2 VHF portables and an Intra Squad (IR) portable for each ground team member (1/2 watt output, limited range communications).  ISR's cannot be used by aircraft in flight, so have limited use.

I noted recently in a local newspaper article that the fire service standard (likely implemented after '9/11') requires that each fire fighter now have a radio, which I confident is a radio that works on their current repeater wide area system & fireground simplex/repeater channels.

CAP on the other hand may very well be dispatching ground teams with only 1 VHF radio at times, with ISR's that can only communicate within the team with no access to airborne "high bird" relay support if necessary.

One has to wonder if a new "safer" standard (isn't that what safety is all about) would issue a standard 5 watt VHF portable to each member on the deployed team.  Of course currently it's very expensive to fund this.  What's interesting is a manufacturer, Wouxun,http://www.wouxun.com/ offers a 5 watt NFM portable radio for around $100.00, that meets transmitter tolerance technical specifications, but falls a bit short on receiver technical specifications.   My understanding is receiver testing, even in high radio traffic areas, by very competent CAP radio technical personnel indicates there's no issues with interference.  Got to wonder why CAP would not try to get a 'waiver' from the USAF in order to at least allow the membership to buy this portable unit and utilize    

I think that there's "safety in numbers" and the more less expensive radios we can license for members utilization (especially radios that can be easily programmed and utilized for other uses), the safer we will be, especially in light of the low membership radio availability to repeater ratio that currently exists.
RM     
   

[RiverAux]

I see no need for every CAP ground team member to have a VHF radio. 

Why is that any "safer" than having an ISR?  The worst that might happen is that if an individual member gets separated from the team they can only communicate with the others on the team.  I don't think it likely that such separation would be so bad that it would be outside the range of the ISR and that you'd need a CAP aircraft to try to find them. 

Firefighting is a whole different ballgame.  If they get cut off they may be dead within minutes.  The urgency level is many orders of magnitude beyond what a cut-off CAP ground team member might face.  At worst they may have to spend the night in the woods and use some of the survival training.  Death?  Major injury?  Almost no risk of that at all. 

If I were going to put a piece of equipment with every GT member it would be a GPS unit, not a VHF radio.

[JayT]

No. Every firemen has a radio because it's required for tactical communication. How many times has a CAP Ground Team called out a 'mayday' because there were stuck in an attic, or burning up in a basement?

[tsrup]

Based solely on how many times I have had to put a cadet's ISR privileges in "time out", giving every ground team member (often times a cadet) a VHF would just tie up the net..



I'm usually the first to talk up cadets on ground teams, but it seems like their IQ drops to half when some of them get radios..
Same could be said by some seniors.


No, Limit the VHF radios strictly to those with an MRO or the GTL,  ISR's are otherwise adequate for intra-team communication.

[EMT-83]

Not every firefighter has a radio, at least in any department I'm familiar with. There should be a radio available for every team, for reasons previously mentioned.

[wuzafuzz]

This thread does bring up a good point.  What will replace ISR's someday?  At the rate those things are lost or destroyed it does seem prudent to wonder what comes next. 

Of course we can use FRS for non-ES stuff.  But we are firmly in the ES category when we go out on ground teams.

It's not a crisis, time is on our side, but those ISR'saren't going to last forever.

[a2capt]

I know where this is leading...

Just what we need, make things more complicated. Does it really say that each ground team member needs their own radio, and a second? Or is this based on an interpretation of the SQTR? If the team has "a radio", or two.. among them. IE, one in the vehicle, one to take out.

[HGjunkie]

One VHF and ISR for the team leader. Then give an ISR to each teammate, or group the team into pairs of two and give one radio per group.

[arajca]

The ToA allows for 2 VHF handhelds per GT, but CAP does not have enough VHF handhelds to do that. According the the last region liasion NCO I talked to about this, the Table of Allowances specifies what is permitted, not what is supplied. From our discussion, no unit in the AF has a full ToA. It is used to help set budgetting priorities.

As I understand it, the idea of having 2 vhf handhelds is to for one to go with the GTL and the other to remain with the vehicle operator who is maintaining contact with the incident base on the mobile radio in the vehicle when the team dismounts.

[RADIOMAN015]

Based solely on how many times I have had to put a cadet's ISR privileges in "time out", giving every ground team member (often times a cadet) a VHF would just tie up the net..

I'm usually the first to talk up cadets on ground teams, but it seems like their IQ drops to half when some of them get radios..
Same could be said by some seniors.


No, Limit the VHF radios strictly to those with an MRO or the GTL,  ISR's are otherwise adequate for intra-team communication.

Locally yet, I haven't recommended licenses for any cadet VHF portables.   We have an in wing source that sells Motorola model HT1000 to wing members only for a very good price, but of course this is only 16 channels, so basically it will fit the wing's repeaters, and standard nationwide simplex channels, with no other real capability.   IF you can get an FCC part 90 approved portable radio for personal use with large channel capacity, than other coordinate CAP inter agency channels can be added and IF you are licensed amateur radio operator you can also program in some ham repeaters and simplex frequencies for a "just in case" circumstances.

IF we were willing to change our doctrine on the ISR's (e.g. allow aircraft to use under limited circumstances), than surely an $86.00 low power radio might have a bit more use.   BTW there's nothing to say that the VHF personal portable radios could only be programmed with the CAP simplex channels only.   It's likely that a VHF 5 watt portable in a rural area is going to do better radio communications wise than a 1/2 watt UHF radio.  Things can happen and it's better IMHO to have more capability than less.
RM       

[RiverAux]

As I understand it, the idea of having 2 vhf handhelds is to for one to go with the GTL and the other to remain with the vehicle operator who is maintaining contact with the incident base on the mobile radio in the vehicle when the team dismounts.

If the vehicle driver has a mobile in the vehicle, why do they also need a handheld? 

[RADIOMAN015]

As I understand it, the idea of having 2 vhf handhelds is to for one to go with the GTL and the other to remain with the vehicle operator who is maintaining contact with the incident base on the mobile radio in the vehicle when the team dismounts.

If the vehicle driver has a mobile in the vehicle, why do they also need a handheld?

As long as the driver in that vehicle has a EF Johnson mobile, it could be placed in the scan mode for the repeater as well as the air to ground, ground tactical, and guard channels.   Personally I think that once a team is in a probable area with air support available everyone should change to the air to ground frequency and use the aircraft for relay of information back to mission base (such as check ins) rather than using the repeater.   This also might be necessary if repeater coverage is spotty than the ground team should send a specific request via the nearest aircraft for high bird support.
RM

[RADIOMAN015]

I know where this is leading...

Just what we need, make things more complicated. Does it really say that each ground team member needs their own radio, and a second? Or is this based on an interpretation of the SQTR? If the team has "a radio", or two.. among them. IE, one in the vehicle, one to take out.

Actually the EF Johnson portable radio was offered in the international orange color but CAP decided not to buy those, which seems a bit odd since the radios are suppose to be used by ground teams and IF you drop it in the woods ya might find it easier :angel:.
Edit add: Well unfortunately it would add significantly to the cost of each radio by over $160.00, of course unless negotiated at the time of the contract see http://www.efjohnsontechnologies.com/vita/5100_ES     

SQTR is a qualification standard for a team member and is not necessarily "doctrine".  It's the same with there's a TOA for GT's that states 2 VHF/P25 portable radios, & one airband portable radio, BUT I've yet to see any team with an air band portable.  There's nothing to prevent team members from bringing cellphones/pda's etc as well as other portable radio equipment that may give access in an emergency to other radio systems.
RM   

[arajca]

As I understand it, the idea of having 2 vhf handhelds is to for one to go with the GTL and the other to remain with the vehicle operator who is maintaining contact with the incident base on the mobile radio in the vehicle when the team dismounts.

If the vehicle driver has a mobile in the vehicle, why do they also need a handheld?

Mobile to base
HH to team

Like it or not, we have enough problems getting folks on the right channel and leaving the volume turned up so they can hear the radio, to rely on these same people to understand the intricacies of the scan function is foolishness. If you've worked comm at SAREXs and incidents, you've been told "I don't care about all that giberish. Just put the radio on the right channel so I can get out." as the GTL hands his radio to you. And of course, "And just how the [fill in the blank] am I supposed to change channels on this POS you gave me?" Before you start proclaiming that those member should not be given radios, remember it took years to get them to actually use the radio semi-properly. You can provide all the training you want and even test them after the training, but as soon as they leave, it's wasted time. Don't expect much help from Ops. Afterall, you're looking at reducing their resources.

If they only have one radio, they'll put it on the team and base will not be able to contact them.

[RiverAux]

Mobile to base
HH to team

Like it or not, we have enough problems getting folks on the right channel and leaving the volume turned up so they can hear the radio, to rely on these same people to understand the intricacies of the scan function is foolishness. If you've worked comm at SAREXs and incidents, you've been told "I don't care about all that giberish. Just put the radio on the right channel so I can get out." as the GTL hands his radio to you. And of course, "And just how the [fill in the blank] am I supposed to change channels on this POS you gave me?" Before you start proclaiming that those member should not be given radios, remember it took years to get them to actually use the radio semi-properly. You can provide all the training you want and even test them after the training, but as soon as they leave, it's wasted time. Don't expect much help from Ops. Afterall, you're looking at reducing their resources.

If they only have one radio, they'll put it on the team and base will not be able to contact them.

Sorry, but I wouldn't be approving spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a handheld radio to use in a vehicle which already has a mobile radio that can fulfill the same function.  Now, I don't have a problem with the ground team carrying 2 VHFs (with one being for a backup), but if someone can't figure out the scan function, they shouldn't be on the radio. 

[wuzafuzz]

Sorry, but I wouldn't be approving spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a handheld radio to use in a vehicle which already has a mobile radio that can fulfill the same function. 

I don't like the scan function for mission communications.  For the most part I wont to know what channel people are on, not wondering which channel to find them on.  Plus it's too easy to miss traffic on a busy net when scanning.  If folks are taught the priority channel follows the channel selector it's not too bad, but that is commonly forgotten.  I won't even start on the pure evil that is talk back scan.  Two radios are the best way to handle traffic on two channels.

...if someone can't figure out the scan function, they shouldn't be on the radio. 

Then almost no one will be on the radio. As arajca stated, many are challenged enough by changing channels and zones. I would love to change all that, and I AM working on it, but it's an uphill battle.

[Eclipse]

Ground teams don't need a third VHF radio.

Our corporate equipment does not need to be utilized for "other", and the capability, as is, is a constant temptation for members to
be adding prohibited frequencies. Just in case.

In short.

No.

[Eclipse]

Locally yet, I haven't recommended licenses for any cadet VHF portables.   We have an in wing source that sells Motorola model HT1000 to wing members only for a very good price, but of course this is only 16 channels, so basically it will fit the wing's repeaters, and standard nationwide simplex channels, with no other real capability.

What other "capability" is necessary?

[arajca]

Locally yet, I haven't recommended licenses for any cadet VHF portables.   We have an in wing source that sells Motorola model HT1000 to wing members only for a very good price, but of course this is only 16 channels, so basically it will fit the wing's repeaters, and standard nationwide simplex channels, with no other real capability.

What other "capability" is necessary?

Out of wing operation such as staffing an NCSA or helping a neighboring wing on a search or disaster?

[Eclipse]

Never been a challenge for me or mine.