Mobiles not supported by NTC?

[BoxGranch]

Anyone outside of FLWG notice that their mobile radios not assigned to vehicles have been moved to not supported by NTC status?

[Eclipse]

In ORMS?

[arajca]

In ORMS. Many of the old EF Johnsons have been moved to that status as parts are not available. This was put out to the Communications folks a few months ago.

[Eclipse]

Mine is showing that as well.

Presumably this means that if they stop working they move from doorstops to boat anchors?

[CAP9907]

That is correct. As Wing's receive new APX radios, 'X' number of issued legacy units are required to go into not-supported mode. They can be used but if maintenance is needed, NTC will not repair. Unknown if they are allowing Members or units to self-fund repairs...

~9907

[Eclipse]

X' number of issued legacy units are required to go into not-supported mode

I know I shouldn't ask...but...

...why?

It's one thing if parts are unavailable, but if it's just arbitrary because NHQ has too many incubators on the list...

[CAP9907]

I was told that it was not punitive, but rather the unavailability of spare parts along with repurposing existing radios for the remote repeater initiative. Maybe someone from higher can chime in.

~9907

[Fubar]

I swear I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but I don't understand this comm rollout at all. They said it could take up to 10 years to finish all the wings, but after just a couple of years the current radio model will be replaced with something else. Goodbye a single training standard nationwide. They say the fancy (and expensive) bells and whistles like encryption are necessary due to customer needs, but then those customers are apparently not paying for that "need", so we're buying on the 10 year installment plan.

Things that we do need, such as additional repeater pairs, more radios in the hands of members, and secure repeater linking are all things we're told are not possible.

I ran up the chain awhile back that hey, since it will be 10 years before we get radios, can we get new batteries for our EJF portables since they all hold about 9 minutes of a charge? I was told NHQ doesn't support them anymore because you can't get parts. So now everyone is running around with $20 ham radios that have been programmed to work on CAP frequencies, just so they can get their job done.

Also, at last year's national conference they showed towers of equipment sitting in storage at NHQ. They were very proud of redoing the warehouse so that it could hold more stuff. Stuff that shouldn't be sitting on shelves and instead should be in the hands of the membership. Has any of that equipment moved yet? Hang on to it too much longer and the warranties will expire before they leave Maxwell.

To hopefully reinforce I'm not trying to whine just to be a whiner, but I do appreciate NHQ saying wings can keep the existing EFJ equipment if they need it, but that it won't be supported. That's a fair tradeoff, provided wings are resourceful in finding parts they need. It also means we didn't get the usual "trade in" discount from Motorola that usually are included in these kinds of deals.

[BoxGranch]

As a group comm officer I would have appreciated some notice. I got none. Certainly there is nothing I could have done and I knew it was going to happen, but it would have been nice to be told beforehand. It would also have been nice to point out that the TA allows for some radios for IC and ICP use and kept them supported.

While parts are an issue, I think the plan to reduce the number of radios is the bigger reason. We are going from 2,401 mobiles to 1,059.

If you read the DOK presentation at the national conference in 2018, it was clear the only base and mobile VHF radios they are going to support in the long run will be in corporate vehicles and for IC's and ICP's.

The number of handhelds goes down by about 300, from 2,124 to 1,826 and I hear I will start losing support on the Johnson handhelds as well.

Elsewhere in the PowerPoint, the DOK mentions the possibility of reducing the number of repeaters by 50%.

The 2019 presentation didn't have much in the way of numbers and I have not found a 2020 update, but need to look again.

It sounds like I will have to turn in Johnsons to get Motorolas. The Johnsons will be used for ReadyOps. I had hoped to retain the Johnsons.

I am also hearing that a Noun Mobile Radio-VHF may not be used as a base and a Noun Base Station-VHF may not be used as a mobile. The later is not an issue as I have so few, but the former is an issue due wanting bases at my squadrons as well as co-located with HF radios which I am being encouraged to move to member homes.

Even if I can find money to get them fixed, there is going to be the FOUO issue with frequencies. The repair shop will have to be approved. So far, I have not found one. Should anyone know of such a place, please let me know.

Caveat, none of what I perceive is happening is written in stone other than the loss of support on all of my mobiles save the ones in vans. It is, however, what I am hearing from above and I was wondering if it is what is happening elsewhere. It seems that CAP underwent a dramatic restructure of communications with the requirement for NTIA compliant radios went into effect and is going through another with the current plan.

[Eclipse]

Noun Mobile Radio-VHF may not be used as a base and a Noun Base Station-VHF

If this is, in fact, true, this is not only ridiculous, but will disable a significant amount
of the already struggling comms network.

I can't begin to imagine who would think this is a good idea, nor for that matter how it would be
enforceable or workable from a practical perspective.

[arajca]

A simple solution is when you're replacing a mobile in a base station role, request a base station set.

[CAP9907]

Noun Mobile Radio-VHF may not be used as a base and a Noun Base Station-VHF

If this is, in fact, true, this is not only ridiculous, but will disable a significant amount
of the already struggling comms network.

I can't begin to imagine who would think this is a good idea, nor for that matter how it would be
enforceable or workable from a practical perspective.

Ah, but it is indeed true. I tried to request a replacement mobile antenna and mount for a Noun base radio that was already installed in a CAP van. Was told by NTC "negative, that radio is classed as a Noun
Mobile radio". Frustrating indeed.. the solution was shall we say creative, but within the rules and regs.

~9907

[arajca]

There is also the option to get a mobile reclassed as a base or vise-versa. Or, if happen to have a mobile playing a base and a base playing a mobile in the same unit, swap them.

[Eclipse]

There is also the option to get a mobile reclassed as a base or vise-versa. Or, if happen to have a mobile playing a base and a base playing a mobile in the same unit, swap them.

You say that as if you think it's as simple as going online and checking a box.

[CAP9907]

FYI,

Yesterday NHQ sent out an email that addressed this question. Contact your Wing DC for more, it went out to all Comm managers and was basically as I stated above but with further amplification.

~9907

[arajca]

There is also the option to get a mobile reclassed as a base or vise-versa. Or, if happen to have a mobile playing a base and a base playing a mobile in the same unit, swap them.

You say that as if you think it's as simple as going online and checking a box.

Never said it would be easy, just that the option exists.

[Eclipse]

It's pretty amazing that CAP is still squirreling radios in closets instead of deploying
them, however the TOA is a big part of the problem.

[arajca]

It's the trophy idea. My unit has more radios than yours. Also, some folks who want radios issued to them do not want to take responsibility for them.

People are going to be surprised when National starts replacing EFJs the APXs and it isn't going to be a 1 for 1 replacement.

[Eclipse]

I would hazard the majority of radios are used once or twice a year, and that's by, if not design,
then practical reality.

It's the same song and dance for the last 20 years.

People need radios for a legitimate, but limited activity, and the TOA blocks them from being
issued because "reasons". So in a lot of cases they buy something cheap and functional but
limited for CAP.

Meanwhile, they issue radios to people based on the TOA who have no actual use for them, and
then wonder why they never get used.

And the nets are a lot of people using PORs and / or CORs but who have no ES quals so they
can't ever use them real-world, so their confidence checks are meaningless.

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

Someone gets a stray hair, calls a bunch of them in, they sit and collect dust until
someone else decides they can't sit around and they get reissued to the same people
again because they are they only ones authorized based on the TOA.

Rinse - repeat.

You don't rebuild a communications infrastructure by reducing the number of radios
both physically and by what is authorized.

And The Vid is just going to make this worse, since there will be people dropping
off both the actual roster and ES quals in waves, meaning a lot of people allotted
radios via the TOA won't be any more.

(NHQ has been holding this off by not expiring people and quals, I doubt they
can do that past the FY, watch for a Niagra Falls like drop in membership and qualified people
on 1 Oct, or whenever they decide to open those doors).

The last three+ months was the perfect time to revitalize the comms network.
People sitting around bored could have been setting up their radios, getting
familiar with them, and building a real network with actual traffic.  Heck even
>I< pulled out my radios and got them up and running. For what?

Highbird nets with a single pilot would be the perfect way to exercise skills
and put hours on the planes, without little risk of contact.

But there's been nothing.  I know there's been some of the typical "see how this
works" on HF, which is also all but useless, since if you don't have a strong
local VHF net, talking to "someone" who has an HF means nothing.

Rinse - repeat.

[radioguy]

To hopefully reinforce I'm not trying to whine just to be a whiner, but I do appreciate NHQ saying wings can keep the existing EFJ equipment if they need it, but that it won't be supported. That's a fair tradeoff, provided wings are resourceful in finding parts they need.

I didn't find this to be true.  We recently received a few APX4500's and asked to keep the EFJ 5300's for member use (and the squadron was agreeable to no NTC support).  Absolutely NOT... send them back to NTC.

[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:

(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.

[Spam]

... 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]

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,

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]

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?

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]

I'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]

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.

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.

[Eclipse]

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/DOK__Program_Update_0AB8C29929763.pdf

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/DOKPR__Recruiting_and_Retention_30897760266C8.pdf

[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]

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.

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.

[CAP9907]

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.

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

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[CAP9907]

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.

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.

[Eclipse]

As 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.

[CAP9907]

As 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

[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]

Andrew 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.

[Spam]

[Laughing]

Fair enough!

V/r
Spam

[radioguy]

Anyone 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!   ;-)

[BoxGranch]

I just spotted that most of my power supplies were taken off life support as well.

I had taken a hiatus from watching this thread, but based on my experience in the field and directing people in the field in 2004 and 2005 covering hurricanes, the cellular and landline networks took heavy hits and were not reliable. Satcomm was what saved my day, especially the first BGAN's I got in time for Katrina and Rita. Oddly, VZW did stay solid in New Orleans for Katrina which was a big help as we were heavy users of cellular data, but there was a lot of area impacted outside of NO. I am sure there were other areas that were fine, but even locations that were not badly damaged found systems badly overloaded by evacuees. I know there is a lot more mobile infrastructure today, but counting in cellular for the first few days after a major storm is not wise in my view. Satcomm offers the best bet.

[Eclipse]

CAP had satcomm in Katrina and it was largely useless as the satellites were saturated with all the agencies that thought they could rely on them.

It's also way too expensive for any general distribution.

[BoxGranch]

I had no trouble with Globalstar and Inmarsat BGAN through multiple storms. I never said it was practical for CAP. The biggest issue I had was trying to make people understand they don't work indoors and you can't walk about bobbing your head as the antennas need to be pointed at the sky when using a handheld. That's not an issue with a BGAN, of course.

What provider was CAP using? I would guess Iridium. We used Globalstar for voice up to about 2008 and switched to Iridium when Globalstar's amplifiers on the birds began crapping out. They have replaced all of the birds now, so that's where I would go if I were in the market. CAP may not have had much priority on Iridium. I consistently saw FEMA people getting through on Iridiums with ease, but some of the state and local people complained about not getting through. My vendors indicated that Iridium could and did prioritize who they were told to prioritize, so it might not always be accessible to many users. As a non-governmental userhat's why I always preferred Globalstar . I also liked the architecture better for my purposes, though Iridium has a much better footprint. Voice quality was better on Globalstar although the newer Iridium headsets must have had better codecs as they were a lot better than the first ones.

[Eclipse]

Most likely Iridium, but I don't know for sure.

Most of the CAP sat phones only existed because they were part of the old SDIS packages which
some then decided would look cooler be more missionready in their homes.

Like most CAP advanced technology initiatives, this seemed like a good idea at the time.

[BoxGranch]

Satcomm is great to have, but too pricey for most of us, alas. I still have a personal Gstar, but can't justify keeping it on the air. If it really looked like the big one was going to hit here and there was time, I would get some prepaid minutes, but it would be for family safety.

In the early days with Gen 2 cellular, a cool feature of the original Gstar handhelds was being able to use them on landbased VZW and Gstar. As landbased left that technology behind, you could no long activate it on VZW. I still think they ought to put out one with modern chips you could use it for landbased or cellular. It was nice to only have to carry one of the stupid things. A lot of times I was carrying six on different carriers plus the satphones. You could almost always get through on somebody's network. These days I guess you only need three plus the satphones.

Elon Musk's Starlink is going to be very interesting and might put a lot of other players into a hard spot, assuming the tin hat folks and astronomers don't stop it. I'm not seeing pricing yet and wonder about latency, but it could be a game changer.