Communications and CAPR 100-3

[Psicorp]

I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, so I thought I'd bring it up. 

CAPR 100-3 has been completely revised and published on 3 Nov, '06. 

To highlight some changes:

The use of acronyms ("C.S.T." versus "I SPELL Charlie Sierra Tango") and plain numbers ("one nine" versus "FIGURES one niner") is now authorized when communication conditions are good.

The use of abreviated procedure is now authorized, i.e. the "THIS IS" proword can be ommitted.  If communication conditions or situation warrents the use of allowed ommitted prowords, the Net Controller can require the use of "Full Procedure", which is the format we've been using previously.

Announcing the C.A.P. organization and location is verbotten.  Example:  Previously during Directed Nets, the script would read something like,

         "Attention all stations, this is (call sign), Net Control for the (Location) (Type) net, opening the net on XX Month Year at XXXX Local. This is a Directed Net, conducted by Civil Air Patrol, operating thru repeater (call sign)...."   

Under the new rules it would read something like,

         "(General Wing call sign), this is (call sign), opening the net on XX Month Year at XXXX Local.  This is a Directed Net, operating thru repeater (call sign).  For the duration of this net, Use Full Procedure...."

The new CAPR 100-3 is in the Regs section on the National site.

[DNall]

I don't know, I'm fine with those changes cause they're what we do anyway, but I worry it may cause people to get sloppy & that will make a dif when conditions aren't so good. Plus increasingly our comms will be monitored by official parties rather than wierdos w/ scanners. The only question I'd have is if you're doing a directed net, how do you call fo Gp, & then each Sq's stations w/o stating the unit names (many of which contain location data)?

[arajca]

The stardard net is run by calling individual call signs, not by unit. Some areas may use different procedures, but most directed nets do not use unit names for check in.

In CO, the call down list goes NCS's, wing staff, everyone else, region staff in numerical order. After the roll is called, stations not on the list are asked for by series. Then any visiting stations are called for.

[DNall]

I don't understand. On say a Gp net here, you pause for traffic from Nat/Reg/Wg/Gp staff in order; then call for stations Sq by Sq; then any other stations. It's more abreviated then that lately cause the traffic has dropped a ton in recent years, but that's the proceedure. Would it now be 'pause for any (nat callsign) stations, region callsign stations, etc & then free for all (sorta numeric) when you get to the local level? Security is one thing, but disorganization is just bad. Use of codewords or something might be useful.

[Psicorp]

I don't understand. On say a Gp net here, you pause for traffic from Nat/Reg/Wg/Gp staff in order; then call for stations Sq by Sq; then any other stations. It's more abreviated then that lately cause the traffic has dropped a ton in recent years, but that's the proceedure. Would it now be 'pause for any (nat callsign) stations, region callsign stations, etc & then free for all (sorta numeric) when you get to the local level? Security is one thing, but disorganization is just bad. Use of codewords or something might be useful.

I've been using a pretty generic format, keeping it short and sweet.  I haven't been doing Net Control for very long, so take my statements and opinions on this as more of a question than any kind of fact.      What I've doing (script approved by my "Comm Mentor") is ask if there are any National, Region, or Group stations wishing to check in, then ask for any (Wing Call Sign) stations, and finally ask for any non-(Wing Call Sign) stations to check in.  Check ins usually don't last long, especially on the limited range VHF, even with a repeater...I've been averaging 5 minutes from opening the net to closing.

As far as codewords, the new 100-3 states:

              "a. Codes and Ciphers. Locally designed codes or adaptation of official codes, however well intentioned, will not deceive a cryptanalyst; only officially authorized codes are to be used. It has become a practice within CAP to assign "code words" to various mission events, in the belief that doing so will conceal these events from an undesired listener. This practice is seldom effective, violates the principles of the Incident Command System and is therefore not authorized."

[Johnny Yuma]

What they're doing is bringing us in line with Allied Communications procedures 125, which is how the DoD and many other friendly militaries net procedures work. CAP's (big surprise) about 20 years behind the rest of DoD in comm procedures.

anyone who works with MARS will have this down pat. The rest of us have a learning curve but we're smart animals, we'll pick it up.


Johnny Yuma

[Psicorp]

What they're doing is bringing us in line with Allied Communications procedures 125, which is how the DoD and many other friendly militaries net procedures work. CAP's (big surprise) about 20 years behind the rest of DoD in comm procedures.

anyone who works with MARS will have this down pat. The rest of us have a learning curve but we're smart animals, we'll pick it up.


Johnny Yuma

Thanks...that's good to know.  I was kind of wondering if it was something like that.   The authorization to utilize what is essentially the Citizen Band net is something that's been lacking for eons.   The example that's in the Reg is what I've been questioning since I was a cadet...if we're looking for a lost hunter and we know he has a hand held CB, it makes no sense that we can't use it to try and communicate with the hunter. 

[DNall]

I'm pretty confident the military uses codewords for mission events, say like execute codes & such. I really don't like the idea of bodcasting a find in the clear, especially when there's no ground units there to secure it from morons & such.

[Hartley]

Hi DNall,

  Yes, they do, but there are some pretty strict rules on how they're used - for example, such a codeword is used only ONCE, never again - which is far different from how CAP tends to do it.

  What CAP needs, of course, is a true security program with encryption and all - but that's a mighty big step for us.. and it will come one day, but probably not this year :-)

73 DE Hartley

[ELTHunter]

Unless they come through with some serious funding AND the radios make it to the units, which I seriously doubt will ever happen, I pray they never utilize the encryption function.  I have a issued EFJ mobile, but all of my units, and all the other units in our Group are member furnished.  Most are Grandfathered in because they were procured prior to last January.  I doubt more than 1% of them have the encryption technology.  That's way too expensive for members to have to purchase, and it's unsafe and unsat to have Ground Teams in the woods without comms that work.

[lordmonar]

That is why CAP is replacing all the comm units next year.

Let's face it...encryption is comming...maybe not next year...but within 5 is my guess.  Operational Security and Privacy will demand it.

[arajca]

CAP is not replacing all comm units next year. They are replacing non-narrow band compliant comm equipment that fills a critical need iaw the TOA for CAP comm. If the equipment you are using doesn't fill that role, like, say, the unit commander's radio, then it is not being replaced. If the equipment is not CAP owned, it is not being replaced.

For example, I am on the COWG comm staff. I use a personally purchased radio. I am not in line to receive an EF Johnson radio because I don't fill a critical need in the TOA.

[ELTHunter]

That is why CAP is replacing all the comm units next year.

Let's face it...encryption is comming...maybe not next year...but within 5 is my guess.  Operational Security and Privacy will demand it.

I understand that is the plan, and maybe it looks good on paper and sounds good when NHQ says it to the USAF and HLS, but I don't see it being practical any time soon.  I have seen the TOA.  When I see the units in the field actually get the equipment. maybe I'll agree with you.

At the present time, and with the present tasking of missions we get, I don't see the need for the encryption 99 percent of the time.  Especially with the number of member owned radios that most units operate with.

When you say operational security demands it, give me some examples of when most units would actually need it.  Not counting border patrol or HLS support flights, which most members will never have the opportunity to participate in

I'm not trying to be one of these "in the old days of CAP" guys.  If we were getting the missions to warrent the expense, I'd agree with you.  I just see it being more dog & pony or wishfull thinking at this point in time.

[Psicorp]

The real question I have is are radios that are "grandfathered in" significally less complaint to warrant the $1000 difference in price tag?

I happened to have seen HT-1000s on Ebay today for less than $300.  Listing said they are P-25 compliant.   While I don't feel like I need to buy my own radio, I'm not sure I want to be responsible for a new $1200 "golden brick" of CAP's.

[KyCAP]

The NTIA engineering standards have changed since this all started.  If you note, the compliance POST January 2006 for the HT-1000 is "NOT AVAILABLE" because Motorola is not testing that radio to the new standards.

https://ntc.cap.af.mil/comm/equipment/vhf_summary.cfm

Also, P-25 should imply that it is capable of digital mode transmission using the Common Air Interface (CAI).  Do not confuse that with "narrowband" compliant.

For example, older TAIT radios are NARROWBAND compliant, but are in no way UPGRADEABLE to support P25 digital mode transmission (digital).  That is the underpinning to the "digital" and "encryption" everyone is talking about in the previous messages in this thread.

You can buy NEW gear that is narrowband compliant for $300 or you can buy Narrowband and P25 capable for $1200 and load the firmware on it and buy it for $1500 or so...

[lordmonar]

The real question I have is are radios that are "grandfathered in" significally less complaint to warrant the $1000 difference in price tag?

I happened to have seen HT-1000s on Ebay today for less than $300.  Listing said they are P-25 compliant.   While I don't feel like I need to buy my own radio, I'm not sure I want to be responsible for a new $1200 "golden brick" of CAP's.

The EFJ's are much more than P-25 compliant.  They have all the bells and whistles too.  Encryption, channelizations, DTMF access.  Also by definition the HT-1000's are no longer supportable.  Ergo you see them on E-bay for $300.  How much did they cost new?

[Dave J]

EFJ's ?  closer to $2200, I believe.   I don't know too many members who are willing to spend that kind of $ for a mobile in the car and a handheld for when on foot in the field.   Yet there's no way the TOE is going to provide comms for all who need it on a mission.  The $$ are simply not there.   That's prolly why Tait is still selling a lot of narrowband compliant (but not P-25 capable) equipment to CAP members.   I know that I can't afford to replace my family's two tait mobiles and two tait handhelds with EFJs.  I still think that if CAP goes digi (P-25) we are going to lose over half of our comm capability.  The depot sold a LOT of tait equipment to CAP members who bought it in good faith that it would be useable after the transition to NB.

[Hartley]

Hello All,

  DaveJ said: "Yet there's no way the TOE is going to provide comms for all who need it on a mission.  The $$ are simply not there."

  First of all, the $$ ARE there - the Air Force has FULLY FUNDED both the Mission Essential and Mission Critical requirements identified in the TA.  {yeah, I learned it as TO&E, too, but the AF uses TA}   That's a total of a bit more than $28 Million since about 1998.

  If there is a valid Mission requirement for Comm equipment that is not identified in the TA, you need to be working thru your chain of command and Wing DC to ensure that this is brought to the attention of NHQ so they can work to modify the TA to accommodate it.

  No, all that equipment isn't in the field yet (most Wings are at about 50% or requirements now) - the guys at the NTC are working like madmen to get it all processed and out, but it will be Springtime before they have it all done.  If your Wing is on logistics or comm freeze because of problems, it will take longer, I'm afraid.

  I have attached a copy of the most recent TA to this message in case you (or anyone else) don't have it available.

73 DE Hartley