Keep Comm Simple

[wuzafuzz]

This DHS OIG report is interesting but not that surprising.  Communications systems need to work for the average user, but all too often they are a beast only a comm geek truly understands.

http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-06_Nov12.pdf

From the report: "only 1 of 479 radio users tested could access and communicate using the specified common channel. Further, of the 382 radios tested, only 20 percent (78) contained all the correct program settings for the common channel."

Although the report addressed interoperability at DHS, there are lessons there for all radio system users, including CAP.  it is a great reminder for CUL's and other planners to keep things as simple as possible, and for us to ensure our training isn't limited to the stuff we do all the time.  Mix it up once in a while to include things we sometimes do.  We'll be less likely to send CAP resources home because they can't change channels to talk to people outside CAP.

FWIW, in COWG we really do talk to outside agencies on the radio. Just during summer and fall this year our crews have talked to county SAR teams, county fire departments, and USFS.  I know of previous interop with NPS, and I am fairly certain there have been more than that.  Interoperability is not some esoteric concept; we have lived it.

[Spaceman3750]

The best comm briefings I have received go something like this:

"Use designator RXX."

During eval-scale exercises I will sometimes get:

"En-route to the search area, use RXX. When you get there, you will be out of range so use RXY. If you can't get us on either, use the highbird repeater on RXZ, or in a last case the HRO on AIR1."

In both cases, I understand when and where to use what designators and the CUL has already anticipated/planned for any terrain or range factors that would prevent me from using some repeaters over others.

[cm42]

I'd like to see exercises where cell phones are entirely prohibited. From what I've seen out there, it would be a monumental challenge, which is very sad, considering it was only a decade or so before that those situations would be routine. Anyone else remember the days when CAP was the largest radio network outside of amateur?

[PHall]

I'd like to see exercises where cell phones are entirely prohibited. From what I've seen out there, it would be a monumental challenge, which is very sad, considering it was only a decade or so before that those situations would be routine. Anyone else remember the days when CAP was the largest radio network outside of amateur?

According to the propaganda from National, we still are the largest.

[Brad]

SCWG was praised by region and I think national for our repeater network. We are fortunate that our Comms Engineer is a former ETV and state CIO employee, so we have access to very well placed repeater sites and a strong network.

I also pushed for our radios to have the nation-wide mutual aid frequencies added on our Liason zone (the one with the VHF Marine channels on it) for when we are working larger-scale incidents. Granted they are simplex-only and usually with most of our large scale incidents we are carrying an 800mhz flying repeater at the request of the state ANYWAY, but it never hurts to have them!

For those of you curious, here yo go:

http://www.cio.sc.gov/palmetto800/Pages/MutualAidFrequencies.aspx

[Johnny Yuma]

I'd like to see exercises where cell phones are entirely prohibited. From what I've seen out there, it would be a monumental challenge, which is very sad, considering it was only a decade or so before that those situations would be routine. Anyone else remember the days when CAP was the largest radio network outside of amateur?

roflmao. IC's not use their cellphones? You gotta be kidding.

I run a one man radio shop for a major Western railroad. My work territory alone has more 2 way radio equipment than my entire region.

When you can operate any CAP repeater in the nation using either your telephone or even your laptop, while at the same time tracking every corporate vehicle using a second radio network you let me know, okay?

[denverpilot]

When you can operate any CAP repeater in the nation using either your telephone or even your laptop, while at the same time tracking every corporate vehicle using a second radio network you let me know, okay?

There are folks who would like to do that.

Challenges:
1. Budget
2. End-to-end encryption requirement

Aggravating #1 and #2 is: Quantar - it's not Motorola's business model to interoperate.

Baseband analog audio and PTT/COS (with or without CTCSS) is the "lingua franca" of interoperability.

Having to maintain original encryption end-to-end kills 99% of the commercially available solutions, of which there are some nice ones.

[denverpilot]

Oops. Messed up the quote. Those are my words above.

[JoeTomasone]

I'd like to see exercises where cell phones are entirely prohibited. From what I've seen out there, it would be a monumental challenge, which is very sad, considering it was only a decade or so before that those situations would be routine. Anyone else remember the days when CAP was the largest radio network outside of amateur?

According to the propaganda from National, we still are the largest.

I have strong feelings on this matter.  Suffice it to say that once National declared war on member-owned radios we lost about 50-60% of our capacity, and much of it has not been rebuilt.   I dare say that my entire Wing's communications capacity is dwarfed by the amateur radio capacity of any reasonably populated County in the Wing.

[Eclipse]

Suffice it to say that once National declared war on member-owned radios we lost about 50-60% of our capacity, and much of it has not been rebuilt.

And when was this, exactly?

Was that before or after they declared war on member owned aircraft by providing airplanes?

I've had a member-owned radio continuously since I gt my A-Cut about 11 years ago, never spent more then $125 (last one cost me $75).

CAP is fully capable of fulfilling its current communications needs and mandates with existing resources. There is no longer a need for a national
blanket of communications sites, that mandate ended long ago with cheap telephones and mainstream adoption of the internet. If it ever becomes a mandate again things will change.  We didn't "lose" capacity, we shed capacity, there's a difference.

I dare say that my entire Wing's communications capacity is dwarfed by the amateur radio capacity of any reasonably populated County in the Wing.

You could make that statement about just about anything where one party has a fixed budget and standards and another has no limits, no standards, and no mandate of performance.  Ever look at a corporate IT department and compare it to the edge and ability of the average freelance consultant who can buy and do anything he wants?

As to Ymua's typical nonsense, how about you call me when you can do it with an all-volunteer force and little-to-no funding.  Comparing a commercial
enterprise to a volunteer organisation serves nothing but your ego.

[Eclipse]

As a commander I had more then a few conversations with marginal performers whose only goal in life was to procure a CAP radio.

Not involved in ES or any other activities (encampments, airshows, etc.) that would warrant or require a radio, not even interested in
training other communicators in the unit, just "wanted one".

"Why do you need a radio?"

"So I can check in the nets!"

In that case, there's nothing stopping them from using a properly licensed MOR to "Check in the nets.", but the entire idea is akin
to another manual process that produces a good feeling but few tangible results, and we don't issue equipment for that, either.

[JoeTomasone]

Suffice it to say that once National declared war on member-owned radios we lost about 50-60% of our capacity, and much of it has not been rebuilt.

And when was this, exactly?

Was that before or after they declared war on member owned aircraft by providing airplanes?

It was when they decided to mandate that CAP follow the spectral purity standards that the NTIA doesn't require us (or any part of the military) to follow.   That eliminated what is likely the vast majority of the member owned radios.    The current table of allowances does not permit radios to be issued to those interested in communications, but rather to mission essential staff such as Ground Teams and Incident Commanders.    We further make it difficult to purchase a radio by restricting the authorized equipment to that which typically requires expensive commercial software and hardware to program, and restrict member's abilities to be given the frequencies to program.

Your equation of this issue with member-owned aircraft is disingenuous in that we do not need aircraft on anywhere near the frequency or scope that we do radios; in fact, you could say that flying is a subset of all communications activities, since all CAP flying involves communications as well.

Combine this with the various directives coming down from National to utilize radios more (and cell phones and email less) to communicate within our organization and a clear chasm of logic can be seen.   Most of our repeaters are devoid of traffic except for lightly-attended nets and the occasional mission, because those who are interested in communications largely cannot get a radio.   That includes those enrolled in the Communications Specialty Track, for which a Tech rating requires checkins to 25% of nets for one year.   How can you do this if you don't have a radio?  If I had not had a personally-owned radio that was grandfathered (pre-2006), I likely would never have gotten mine.

I've had a member-owned radio continuously since I gt my A-Cut about 11 years ago, never spent more then $125 (last one cost me $75).

Try and place one into service today.   To reiterate, unless you have deep pockets, you need to have good luck on your side to be able to obtain a compliant radio, find someone who can program it for you and who has/can be given the frequencies.   

CAP is fully capable of fulfilling its current communications needs and mandates with existing resources. There is no longer a need for a national blanket of communications sites, that mandate ended long ago with cheap telephones and mainstream adoption of the internet. If it ever becomes a mandate again things will change.  We didn't "lose" capacity, we shed capacity, there's a difference.

See the above.  National's clear direction as expressed down the Communications chain is to use radios more and internet less.  We are expected to maintain near constant vigil on HF/ALE waiting for traffic to be passed.   And no, I am neither joking nor exaggerating.

Once that traffic is received via ALE, it is expected to be passed via VHF nets. 

Given the ToA, the amount of available equipment, and the ever diminished budget, we will not have enough equipment to satisfy anything but small scale missions, certainly not enough to equip everyone in the organization who wants to be active in Comms.  For that matter, I have lots of people in my Wing who don't want to be assigned an asset with a value of $1800 on the low end and $4300 on the high end that they are therefore responsible for. 

These realities are reflected in ever-dwindling numbers of MROs, CULs, and Comm Specialty Track enrollees.

I dare say that my entire Wing's communications capacity is dwarfed by the amateur radio capacity of any reasonably populated County in the Wing.

You could make that statement about just about anything where one party has a fixed budget and standards and another has no limits, no standards, and no mandate of performance.  Ever look at a corporate IT department and compare it to the edge and ability of the average freelance consultant who can buy and do anything he wants?

The issue at hand was National's assertion that we are the largest communications network - which might have been true when we had member-owned radios and packet - but is largely a shadow of what it once was.

[Eclipse]

It was when they decided to mandate that CAP follow the spectral purity standards that the NTIA doesn't require us (or any part of the military) to follow.   That eliminated what is likely the vast majority of the member owned radios.    The current table of allowances does not permit radios to be issued to those interested in communications, but rather to mission essential staff such as Ground Teams and Incident Commanders.    We further make it difficult to purchase a radio by restricting the authorized equipment to that which typically requires expensive commercial software and hardware to program, and restrict member's abilities to be given the frequencies to program.

Seriously, when NHQ changed the standard, I bought a new radio.  The one I had was $125, plus some accessories.  I used it for about 5 years and then sold it for $75.  The replacement was $75, came with 3 batteries, a dual position desktop charger, and a surveillance earpiece.  No issue unless you make it one.

As to issuing equipment, just like the planes, it has a tactical purpose, and maintaining a comm net is no longer one of those purposes,
but that doesn't restrict the equipment from being used for "those interested".   No issue unless you make it one.

As to the frequencies, anyone with a need, member or otherwise, can get to them. I am a GBD/GTL and the Wing ESO, I have two HTs, a mobile, 3 ISRs, and zee-ro need to know the comm
frequencies.  Just tell me the channel and move on.

That includes those enrolled in the Communications Specialty Track, for which a Tech rating requires checkins to 25% of nets for one year.   How can you do this if you don't have a radio?  If I had not had a personally-owned radio that was grandfathered (pre-2006), I likely would never have gotten mine.

Borrow a radio, or buy one.  If you're not invested enough in CAP comms to tactically need (GTL/MRO/CUL), or buy your own, then
why would you be trying for a communications ratings?  And you're going to try and make the case that the average HAM can't put his hands on 20 radios with a phone call?  In most cases this is a "I want to play with my personal toys conversation", not an actual problem.

Try and place one into service today.   To reiterate, unless you have deep pockets, you need to have good luck on your side to be able to obtain a compliant radio, find someone who can program it for you and who has/can be given the frequencies.   

It could not have been easier - I asked the Wing DC where I could get a radio cheap. He handed me one with an invoice for $75, see above.  Further, the secondary market is piled high with HT1000's - we've had agencies donate a box of them at a time - they get a grant, we get radios.  Members buying them are paying under $100 for the HT1000s, and under $400 for compliant EFJ HTs all day long. No issue unless you make it one.

I have also never had an issue getting one programmed.  I ask for help, I get help.  Usually it's "You going up to see so-an-so any time soon? Sweet, give him this for me and ask him to program it."

There are people who pay full price for computers and complain they can't find anything cheap, and there are people who don't, that's never going to change.

Given the ToA, the amount of available equipment, and the ever diminished budget, we will not have enough equipment to satisfy anything but small scale missions, certainly not enough to equip everyone in the organization who wants to be active in Comms.  For that matter, I have lots of people in my Wing who don't want to be assigned an asset with a value of $1800 on the low end and $4300 on the high end that they are therefore responsible for. 

I disagree on the scale- my wing has radios in the hands that are needed, with gear on the shelf looking for a home.

As to not wanting to take responsibility, that's a maturity issue that I am so tired of hearing. Can't take responsibility for a radio? Seriously?
But you expect to be trusted with supervising cadets or running a team that is supposed to help save a life?  Not to mention the fact
that NHQ does not go after people for lost or broken equipment, especially the broken stuff.  Unless you throw an HT through the Wing CC's
window, the ROS will be closed, they will write it off and move on.  Personal knowledge of that doing the reports.  We're talking
lost, broken, and member quit and never returned it (to name a few examples).

We have far too many people who simply "can't be bothered" - they want to play, but as soon as anything "real" comes into play, the are aghast as signing a 37.
BTW - my example about the guy bugging me for a radio above?  From a unit with a commander who was actually proud of the fact that she had repeatedly
turned down issued equipment, computers, radios, etc.  Why?  "Because then we don't have to do inventory..."  Look to the mirror as to why that unit is usually
one or two names from being shuttered.

Two things I will agree with you on - the implementation and plans around HF are a hot mess.

As to any assertions regarding our network size, I agree there as well.  We should at least adjust the rhetoric.

I'd also like to know where this thread about "using cell phones and internet less and radios more" is coming from. 
That's been something that has been background noise for years, but certainly is >not< coming through any tactical ES chains
I'm a part of.  That sounds more like chatter from the comm guys.

If anything, CAP-USAF has been pressing us to utilize more modern technology in our comms, plans, status boards, etc.

My wing has always used radios as the primary communications channel for all large-scale mission comms, with an emphasis on
message handling and proper use, etc.  But when other more expedient channels are available, we don't forgo them just to make a point.

[SarDragon]

That includes those enrolled in the Communications Specialty Track, for which a Tech rating requires checkins to 25% of nets for one year.

This requirement no longer exists. Check out the current CAPP 214.

[davidsinn]

For that matter, I have lots of people in my Wing who don't want to be assigned an asset with a value of $1800 on the low end and $4300 on the high end that they are therefore responsible for. 

As to not wanting to take responsibility, that's a maturity issue that I am so tired of hearing. Can't take responsibility for a radio? Seriously?

This always slays me. Tomorrow morning, snow willing, I'll jump into a seven ton, $90,000 payloader with a 13' snow plow on the front and go bombing all over town during rush hour. I can do $10k or more in damage in three seconds flat. I don't have any problem doing this. Why do people have a problem taking responsibility for a radio?

[Brad]

When you can operate any CAP repeater in the nation using either your telephone or even your laptop, while at the same time tracking every corporate vehicle using a second radio network you let me know, okay?

Granted not CAP and it's a voice and data network, but my big boss Communications Captain with HP said he had Motorola put an aircard in his laptop that links into the trunked statewide 800 mhz system so he can monitor any repeater and any channel anywhere, even out of state.

For that matter, I have lots of people in my Wing who don't want to be assigned an asset with a value of $1800 on the low end and $4300 on the high end that they are therefore responsible for. 

As to not wanting to take responsibility, that's a maturity issue that I am so tired of hearing. Can't take responsibility for a radio? Seriously?

This always slays me. Tomorrow morning, snow willing, I'll jump into a seven ton, $90,000 payloader with a 13' snow plow on the front and go bombing all over town during rush hour. I can do $10k or more in damage in three seconds flat. I don't have any problem doing this. Why do people have a problem taking responsibility for a radio?

Because even with the new ICUT system, they don't take the time to truly learn how the equipment works or they don't take the time to ask questions if they are unsure. Back with BCUT I could make a PTT-pushing radio user in 2 hours, but they still don't really UNDERSTAND what's going on. Even ACUT still had a lot that was left out. Now with ICUT it's on them watching the videos and passing the quizzes then on us to evaluate them to make sure they understand what they learned. Still again the user who doesn't have radio experience likely has the idea that you could press a wrong button or a wrong combination of buttons and brick the entire thing and have to pay through the nose to get it replaced.

That or they'll lose it. If it's the former, they need to be referred to a competent Communications member to help them alay their fears. If it's the latter....they don't need a radio and if they're in my Group they don't GET a radio unless it comes from higher authority, and even then I'd make a respectful recommendation against it.

[SJFedor]

Here's what I don't understand. The vast majority of people within CAP are comms users, not comm techs or anything else, and the vast majority don't need to be anything more. They need a radio, they need to know what buttons to push, and they need to pass their traffic. 90%+ of members don't need to know that the universal access tone for repeaters is X, or that when travelling from wing X to wing Y, you need to have this and that blessing (what happened to ONE CAP?) or half the other stuff that was (and I'm assuming still is) taught as part of BCUT/ACUT/ICUT/whateverCUT.

I've worked in emergency services for several years, with several organizations. And with every single one of them, it's usually an hour or less class on "here's the radio, you turn it on here, change the channel/bank here, push this button to talk, don't yell into the radio, here's the channel plan, here's what we want you to say". And it seems to work just fine. No 40 years of darkness. No earthquakes. No volcanoes. No dead rising from the grave. No human sacrifice. No cats and dogs living together. No mass hysteria.

And if there's a problem with the radio? We give it to the people who are specialists in the communications equipment, and it gets handled.

[Eclipse]

^ Absolutely 100% +1.

The trouble is that the historical comm people in CAP are HAMs, and HAMs believe everyone should be able to field-strip a radio, and that
confidence testing equipment never used in ES has value (i.e. nets).

You see the same thing with computer users and techs - I'm happy to coffee-house argue with anyone over platform and strategy,
but the average user still views the Intertubes as essentially "magic", and just needs to know how to get their email without too
much drama.

I think the iCut goes a long way towards changing this attitude since it can now be mostly accomplished independently.

[desertengineer1]

Ten years ago, the flow of mission information, span of control, and the rate / amount of data requirements were 1/100th of what they are now.  By virtue of what we are now tasked to do, smart phones are pretty much a requirement. 

Remember we now have WIMRS, ARGUS, Airborne Photographer, GIIEP, CAPSTAR, and several smaller flavors of techological data flow - all focused on expediting large amounts of information into instant access.

For the comms, it is again a function of the information and how much is required. 

How we use the channels has changed little over the years.  I'm amazed how much members gripe about radios, yet work hard to avoid training on them.  Seems to me this is an easy fix.  Train with the radios until you learn how to use them.

[jimmydeanno]

I'm amazed how much members gripe about radios, yet work hard to avoid training on them.  Seems to me this is an easy fix.  Train with the radios until you learn how to use them.

I think radios are neat.  However, I really don't care about the difference between 3m and whatever, digital conversion, blah blah...give me a list that says what channel people are talking on and which button changes them and I'm good to go.  If I need 10 hours of training to work my radio, we are doing it wrong.