Mobiles not supported by NTC?

Started by BoxGranch, July 01, 2020, 02:48:18 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

arajca

Most of the APX's will be exchange - get one and turn in an EFJ. EFJ's that are not on the replacement list can be kept until they fail. National is not saying turn in all EFJs, just those that will be replaced with APXs. If you have older EFJs (MD series), send those in.

NIN

Two things

First, an aside to what Eclipse said above:

Quote(though to be fair, we now know that ES quals are not really "required" to participate in missions when the SHTF, right?)

Everybody who has been signed in to our AFAMs has been at least GES qualified for the PPE distribution and call center support missions, and position qualified or appropriately trainee supervised for our flying mission.

 Not sure what you're seeing, but that was a sticking point for us when we were trying to generate bodies for the now-closed call center support. Needing at least GES to drive over to the state office complex and answer calls with no reimbursements or serious FECA concerns occurring? Kind of overkill.

But I also get why you want to have just one set of rules for all AFAMs and not "well, it's ok for this one, but but this one." That leads to confusion and people mistakenly ignoring the rules because they've seen it done previously.

As for radios, my wing is in the process of "right-sizing" our comms infrastructure. Too many times we've gotten radios back from members that had 1/4" of dust on them from sitting in a basement. As wing commander, sure, I think I should have a VHF radio. But I've got no place to put one at home, and where I'm at, I can't hit a repeater reliably anyway. So me taking a radio is worthless for the moment (and telling my wife "hon, we need to move so we're in the repeater footprint" will be a Class A non-starter. LOL)

We actually could use 1-2 more repeaters in the wing, to offset some failures and build capacity. Siting those repeaters will be harder than obtaining them, however. Maybe ReadyOp will help a little with that, but siting a ReadyOp station is almost as hard, if not slightly harder, than a repeater in some cases due to the need for reliable and priority restoral internet.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spam

Quote from: NIN on July 08, 2020, 02:52:39 PM... But I've got no place to put one at home, and where I'm at, I can't hit a repeater reliably anyway. So me taking a radio is worthless for the moment (and telling my wife "hon, we need to move so we're in the repeater footprint" will be a Class A non-starter. LOL)"

Tell her to do it for the Greater Good, like Frozone did...


radioguy

Quote from: NIN on July 08, 2020, 02:52:39 PMWe actually could use 1-2 more repeaters in the wing, to offset some failures and build capacity. Siting those repeaters will be harder than obtaining them, however. Maybe ReadyOp will help a little with that,

As I understand the ReadyOp project, this new capability will be entirely dependent on RF access to repeaters.  I'm wondering how ReadyOp could enhance or improve actual geographic repeater coverage in any way?

NovemberWhiskey

Quote from: radioguy on July 09, 2020, 02:08:39 PMAs I understand the ReadyOp project, this new capability will be entirely dependent on RF access to repeaters.  I'm wondering how ReadyOp could enhance or improve actual geographic repeater coverage in any way?
Well: it'll give access to a repeater to anyone who is on the internet, assuming that the ReadyOp device is also on the internet. That may amount to a global extension of geographic coverage.

In case of a compromised communications environment where internet access is unavailable either to the ReadyOp device, or to the site which needs access to the ReadyOp device, it will indeed be useless.

It is unclear how adoption of ReadyOp reduces the need for repeaters (as NHQ has, I believe, suggested), except insofar as there are currently repeaters which will only be needed by people who have internet access during missions. i.e. where a repeater is not used by ground teams that are out of cell coverage, aircraft, disaster mitigation efforts that may take place in that compromised communication environment etc.


NovemberWhiskey

I suppose there are some marginal scenarios where a portable/mobile cannot hit the repeater, but can be reached by it, in which case a ReadyOp node could be reached on talk-around on the repeater output frequency?

Fubar

Quote from: radioguy on July 09, 2020, 02:08:39 PMI'm wondering how ReadyOp could enhance or improve actual geographic repeater coverage in any way?

The presentation I saw included the head comm guy at NHQ saying they think they can reduce the number of repeaters deployed by replacing them with a ReadyOp box. The implication being talking to aircraft was the primary purpose of the communications system and a ReadyOp box running a simplex radio was provided enough mission support to eliminate the need for a repeater.

But he was the same guy in the same presentation that said wings could keep old EFJ equipment when being issued new Motorola radios and someone just posted above that isn't true, so who knows.

radioguy

Quote from: Fubar on July 09, 2020, 09:25:04 PMThe presentation I saw included the head comm guy at NHQ saying they think they can reduce the number of repeaters deployed by replacing them with a ReadyOp box. The implication being talking to aircraft was the primary purpose of the communications system and a ReadyOp box running a simplex radio was provided enough mission support to eliminate the need for a repeater.

Last year, I was tasked with identifying a location for a ReadyOp site, with the understanding that the equipment would be minimal (ie. radio and controller in closet; antenna (possibly directional) on roof).  What kind of coverage would you expect with an aging desktop radio and a rooftop antenna, without benefit of a repeater? 

Without a repeater in the loop, I don't see this as a solution to communicate remotely with mobiles, portables, or other fixed stations... aircraft, perhaps, but likely within a much smaller area than via a repeater.


radioguy


I've seen those presentations before, but they certainly don't reflect the reality in my squadron or group.  During past "really bad day" comm exercises, I have been party to discussions as to how, exactly, would we be able to alert and gather the troops should all public communications fail. 

How could our small handful of radios, which are normally turned off, and thinly deployed over a three or four-county area, be effective in such a scenario?  Even worse, our local repeater is essentially isolated from other units in our group (no linking allowed) and our HF range is less than ideal.  I am all for the rebuilding and modernization of the comm program, but I expect that it's going to take a lot more than slick PowerPoints and unrealistic plans and goals.

Eclipse

Quote from: radioguy on July 10, 2020, 03:57:59 AMI've seen those presentations before, but they certainly don't reflect the reality in my squadron or group.  During past "really bad day" comm exercises, I have been party to discussions as to how, exactly, would we be able to alert and gather the troops should all public communications fail. 

How could our small handful of radios, which are normally turned off, and thinly deployed over a three or four-county area, be effective in such a scenario?  Even worse, our local repeater is essentially isolated from other units in our group (no linking allowed) and our HF range is less than ideal.  I am all for the rebuilding and modernization of the comm program, but I expect that it's going to take a lot more than slick PowerPoints and unrealistic plans and goals.


Yep - and >less< radios isn't going to make that better.

In Nov 2016, there was a national mandate for the 2017 Comm Plan to create "a radio-only path to commanders at all levels".

See the 2017 NHQ communications plan template, §2.5.  "C2 Readiness" for detail.

As usual it was characterized as a "USAF Expectation", and "no equipment would be issued or deploy that did not support this,
and there was actual discussion that a "best case scenario would include an HF radio in every Commander's home".   

((*sigh*)) I'll wait for you to stop laughing...

Finished?

It just so happened that my Comm guy at the time had an HF-POR, and was within VHF Simplex
range of my house, which meant it would actually work.

No, seriously.

While working on the plan we received the typical "plans needed, please get them in" messages, etc.
Which seemed to us like someone was actually serious finally.

Look if you can't keep it together I won't be able to finish...

ANYWAY, we finalized the plan, which included all the required elements, and a testing schedule.

"This is fantastic, everybody can just use this and fill in their info..."

If I had a nickel...

Plan submitted, inlcuding boiler plate for other units.
Word was few other bothered.

Then the below.


Rinse - Repeat, x 20 years.

"That Others May Zoom"

CAP9907

Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2020, 04:48:38 AMYep - and >less< radios isn't going to make that better.

In Nov 2016, there was a national mandate for the 2017 Comm Plan to create "a radio-only path to commanders at all levels".

See the 2017 NHQ communications plan template, §2.5.  "C2 Readiness" for detail.


Because this mandate was clearly not attainable, we decided to modify it to something more achievable: "radio-only path to INCIDENT commanders" and actually have accomplished it. We've solved the alerting problem with radio nets once a day and standing orders for more frequent nets for WX or other world events. 3 years on and we are still running right along, but with ZERO real-world use as it's all been 'exercise only'.

~9907
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

Eclipse

Quote from: CAP9907 on July 10, 2020, 06:56:05 PMWe've solved the alerting problem with radio nets once a day and standing orders for more frequent nets for WX or other world events.

Um, really?

In my parts they go once a day, like always, no change, with very little
participation, and mostly by people without any ES rating who
could not even sign into a mission.

"That Others May Zoom"

CAP9907

Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2020, 07:28:39 PM
Quote from: CAP9907 on July 10, 2020, 06:56:05 PMWe've solved the alerting problem with radio nets once a day and standing orders for more frequent nets for WX or other world events.

Um, really?

In my parts they go once a day, like always, no change, with very little
participation, and mostly by people without any ES rating who
could not even sign into a mission.

Yes, really. Participation is small, but everyone who checks-in is at least a MRO in training and are free to sign into our training mission. We have an asst  DC who monitors activity and provides for quality assurance and compliance. I'm not saying that we have IC's check in daily, but the net runs and usually once a week an IC will check-in for confidence checks of the equipment.

 When we have HF WT traffic from NHQ, it always gets to an IC (for practice) eventually... may take a few days after it's entered into the system but it gets there via VHF. The system works, almost always with pre-notice and coordination. As I said, it has not been stressed with a real-world event as commercial Comms have always been available.
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

Eclipse

Quote from: CAP9907 on July 10, 2020, 07:49:11 PMAs I said, it has not been stressed with a real-world event as commercial Comms have always been available.

This is the key sentence always missed in these comm discussion.

There hasn't been any event in CONUS, or even Puerto Rico for that matter, that took out the
commercial infrastructure, even back to Katrina cell phones worked down to the Gulf coast.

If it's still working, CAP isn't needed, and if it's down at a scale that CAP constantly
purports, CAP isn't going to be able to help in a meaningful way.

"That Others May Zoom"

CAP9907

Quote from: Eclipse on July 10, 2020, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: CAP9907 on July 10, 2020, 07:49:11 PMAs I said, it has not been stressed with a real-world event as commercial Comms have always been available.

This is the key sentence always missed in these comm discussion.

There hasn't been any event in CONUS, or even Puerto Rico for that matter, that took out the
commercial infrastructure, even back to Katrina cell phones worked down to the Gulf coast.

If it's still working, CAP isn't needed, and if it's down at a scale that CAP constantly
purports, CAP isn't going to be able to help in a meaningful way.

I agree.

For us, this was an arbitrary goal that we set and achieved. It's good for morale and training (or maybe bragging rights? lol) but likely not much more than that. And all on our team know that and we're ok with it.

~9907
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

Spam

Andrew did.

Hurricane Andrew (Cat 5, 1992) took out the landlines and even the cell system of the day, and is a FEMA lesson learned for infrastructure damage tolerance (or lack thereof). The cell sites ran on emergency batteries for a few hours, then went silent, leaving hundreds of thousands with no landlines and no cell and reliant on newspapers and mouth to mouth rumor control. (*Yes kids, we did have cells back then, and we did have BBSs and we even had CAP packet radio to pass text messages and images)! But when the power went down and the gennys ran dry, we were knocked back further than the mid 1800s (which at least had the telegraph).

See
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/special-reports/hurricane-andrew/article1940282.html
for a retrospective discussion of the changes since then (e.g. cell sites that now have ten day power reserves). Consider however the bandwidth available.

R/s
Spam

Eclipse

Quote from: Spam on July 10, 2020, 09:41:03 PMAndrew did.

Not really relevent to the infrastructure that CAP portends to supplement in a disaster today.

Cell phones were a luxury and there was effectively no consumer access to the internet, and it certainly
wasn't considered the strategic infrastructure that it is today.

In 1992 you're talking hard-mounted "Car Phones", and maybe a bag phone if you had a few shekels.
Palm was founded in '92, and the first SMS wasn't sent until Dec of that year.  Certainly it
could be considered a bell-weather year, but cell phones and internet were by no means consumer devices
or a factor in the average home.

Vesuvius knocked out the coconut wireless, but citing that doesn't mean much now.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spam


radioguy

Quote from: BoxGranch on July 01, 2020, 02:48:18 PMAnyone outside of FLWG notice that their mobile radios not assigned to vehicles have been moved to not supported by NTC status?

I recently checked on my inventory and found that even the EFJ radio installed in our corporate van is now also "not supported by NTC".  Hmmm - Maybe I should start a repair business for CAP radios... shipping included!   ;-)