VHF/HF gear experiences

[Fubar]

Would love to do that, but our wing has a couple of planes that are non-digital capable, so we almost always run all-analog comm plans.

Except of course for the folks in the field that don't know the difference and can't figure out why the aircraft can't hear them.

[JeffDG]

Would love to do that, but our wing has a couple of planes that are non-digital capable, so we almost always run all-analog comm plans.

Except of course for the folks in the field that don't know the difference and can't figure out why the aircraft can't hear them.

Which is why we try to keep it simple and say, in the Comm Briefing "If your channel designator has a "P" in it, it's wrong!"

[Eclipse]

Which is why we try to keep it simple and say, in the Comm Briefing "If your channel designator has a "P" in it, it's wrong!"[/quote]

Boy, and a half!

Give me a fully standardized channel plan, tell me group and channel.  Anything else is unnecessary and wastes everyone's time in a continued
effort to force the issue of field operators "needing to know".

[kd8gua]

In my wing, one of the groups is trying to get permission to set up P25 talk groups on their local repeater. The talk groups would allow for multiple squadrons to use the repeater for individual business and not interfere with each other.

I have traded away my Motorola XTS2500 for a slightly used model 3 VHF 5100ES. Works far better than my 2500 ever did, and with the AMBE+2 vocoder, has awesome digital transmit and receive. Motorola didn't start using AMBE+2 until their most recent APX series.

As far as HF, I have a Micom 2TS in my car, a Micom tuner in the trunk, and a 12' whip over the car. I used a simple ball and spring mount since I do not need the Micom Wima setup (Wima setups use the large pylon which contains the tuner).

Haven't used my personal HF radio for CAP yet, however, at our last SAREVAL, I set up an inverted-V antenna and was able to make several contacts using a Micom 3 RDP. Our base was in north central Ohio, and I was able to communicate with a mobile HF station ~65 miles away, and several base stations even further.

I've rather started to enjoy HF-ALE. It takes the big VFO dial out of HF, but it adds a more technological aspect to it! I get on the ham ALE net once in a great while!

[Fubar]

In my wing, one of the groups is trying to get permission to set up P25 talk groups on their local repeater. The talk groups would allow for multiple squadrons to use the repeater for individual business and not interfere with each other.

Interesting. Each talkgroup actively in use will require two frequencies, plus the control channel frequency. Obviously they've done the math or they wouldn't be asking for permission, so how are there enough CAP frequencies to make that work? Unless of course they're only going to allow one talkgroup to be repeated at a time.

[kd8gua]

Nope. P25 talk groups are different than trunking talk groups in that P25 systems use one repeater input/output pair. You set up talk groups separately from standard PL/NAC information. For example, on the R123 repeater, which covers 5 squadrons easily in Group 1, the radio would be programmed to have squadron 101 as talk group 101, squadron 102 would be talk group 102, etc. The radio would have a separate zone set up for these talk groups. All of the actual frequency information for each channel is exactly the same, but by changing the talk group per channel entered, while on channel 1, you would only hear traffic for squadron 101.

A more localized application of this would be an Encampment that is too spread out for ISR radios, but a portable repeater would have the acceptable range. Instead of everyone hearing all traffic passed on the one repeater channel, the Command staff would be in a talk group, medical in another, logistics, etc. So, much like changing channels on the ISR, you'd just change to the appropriate talk group on which you want to talk.

[Fubar]

Ok, so it's not that groups won't interfere with each other, it's that they won't hear each other making it easier to interfere with each other.

At least that's what would happen at the encampment I went to last year. Multiple ISR frequencies were frequently in use simultaneously, which if I understand your description correctly, would be a problem with the proposed setup.

[EMT-83]

Community repeater would be a better description than talk groups.

[Brad]

Nope. P25 talk groups are different than trunking talk groups in that P25 systems use one repeater input/output pair. You set up talk groups separately from standard PL/NAC information. For example, on the R123 repeater, which covers 5 squadrons easily in Group 1, the radio would be programmed to have squadron 101 as talk group 101, squadron 102 would be talk group 102, etc. The radio would have a separate zone set up for these talk groups. All of the actual frequency information for each channel is exactly the same, but by changing the talk group per channel entered, while on channel 1, you would only hear traffic for squadron 101.

The problem with that though is you've basically added a second layer of squelch control, so you'll end up with your end-user getting frustrated "Comms why is my radio bonking at me when I key up? There's nobody talking so I should be able to get out!" Yea, nobody that you can hear because they're on a different talkgroup...  Talkgroup systems only really make sense in A.) low-traffic environment where you have dedicated radios for specific personnel you want to address specifically (just use a different channel, I say) or B.) high-traffic environment with a large (10+) frequency pool to choose from in a trunking situation, like what we use at my office. Keeps any given frequency busy for only 2 seconds or so so the rest of the state can use the system. (Statewide linked 800mhz Motorola SmartZoneII trunking system)

CTCTSS and a sensible ICS 205 will eliminate the need for all this fancy talkgroup mess. Besides, what all are you doing in your Wing for "business" if you're so busy that you even have to consider a talkgroup system?