Call sign changes

[arajca]

IAW AF policies, CAP will be changing its call sign structure. The only known component at this time is the new call signs will contain a two digit number - no more three digit callsign numbers.

There is a possibility the CAPFLIGHT call signs may change also, but that has not been determined as the CAPFLIGHT callsigns are for the FAA.

This came down from the AF via CAP/DC.

The wing communcations personnel are discussing this issue via email list.

Relatedly, the Communications regs are being revised. Or, rather, rewritten. According to CAP/DC this wil not be band-aid update. There will be significant changes in the communications program based on the new world we live in. The new regs should be going to the national Communciations Committee within the next couple months then be posted for member review. I expect that when they are posted for review, they will not be on the open site, but rather, on the secure NTC Communications site. Details have not been made available yet.

[pixelwonk]

IAW AF policies, CAP will be changing its call sign structure. The only known component at this time is the new call signs will contain a two digit number - no more three digit callsign numbers.

The DC before our current one made squadrons and their member's and/or equipment have four-digit call signs, resulting in much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Without much more info about it, I can't presume to judge, but I think that 2 digits will be a welcome change in my wing.

[MIKE]

Will the two digit call sign provide for enough unique call signs within a wing?  It seems like the new COMM equipment requirements have cut down on the number of active operators because their radios do not meet current standards and they do not wish to fork over the cash for a radio which will meet all established requirements for the foreseeable future.  I happen to be one of them.

In MAWG it was set up so that wing staffers had one and two digit call signs reserved.  Squadrons were issued call signs with three digits usually in a series which depended on the location of your unit. All squadrons in one area would have call signs in the 700 series for example... Of that the numbers would be further divided among units and some numbers would be reserved for positions within a squadron... If you knew the system you knew what unit the operator was from and possibly his/her position in that unit without even knowing their name.

[arajca]

The people looking at this mess and currently trying to figure that out. It looks like each wing will have multiple call signs - generally a base call sign and a number of suffixes to geographically divide the wing. Which means, if you move to a different part of the wing, you will need to get a new call sign.

Keep in mind that so far nothing besides the two digit number is fixed.

[Major_Chuck]

And this is to cut down on the confusion level???  I turned in my call sign last year when my radio became 'non compliant'.  Not having the money to purchase another radio and have it be deemed  'non compliant' in another year I just threw in the hat on communications.  If I need to use it I still have my license to talk and will use a CAP station when need be.

The people looking at this mess and currently trying to figure that out. It looks like each wing will have multiple call signs - generally a base call sign and a number of suffixes to geographically divide the wing. Which means, if you move to a different part of the wing, you will need to get a new call sign.

Keep in mind that so far nothing besides the two digit number is fixed.

[arajca]

And this is to cut down on the confusion level??? 

No. This is bring us into compliance with AF voice call sign regulations. National brought up the mess this would cause to the AF and was basically told "bring it on". National also asked about the possiblilty of getting an exemption to the two digit rule and was told simply "No."

[Matt]

tedda (Maj),

I'm not 100% sure what's happening with our wing call signs anymore....  Rumor had it, last I heard, we were letting either 3 or 4 digit call signs back.  With the exception of B73, he just kinda keeps that one to himself...

As for the rest, if we go to 2-digit call signs, doesn't that mean that only 99 people in a wing can have a call sign?  Because unless the regs change to accomodate it, we can't have different pro-signs.  WIWG, I know used to have 3, now we have 1 due to reg changes.

Matt

[arajca]

Part of the disussion around this topic is that there would be multiple call signs per wing. However, some practices tha would make our lives easier have been banned. ie. no XX Alpha, Bravo, etc; no specific callsigns based on the type of unit, such as vehicles/personnel, mobiles/base/portable, etc. And, just to keep things interesting, there may be a requirement to rotate call signs on a regular basis - like the military does.

[SarDragon]

Here's some of the spin I've heard. Call signs can be two words plus two numbers. Wings that currently have one word call signs can use a variety of second words to exten the number of available callsigns.

Fictitious example:

current callsign = Crook; wing has seven groups

Wing HQ/Staff - Crook Eagle 1 through 99
Group 1 - Crook Bear
Group 2 - Crook Lion
Group 3 - Crook Tiger
and so on

Wings that currently have two word call signs might need to make some changes.

[JaL5597]

Here's some of the spin I've heard. Call signs can be two words plus two numbers. Wings that currently have one word call signs can use a variety of second words to exten the number of available callsigns.

Fictitious example:

current callsign = Crook; wing has seven groups

Wing HQ/Staff - Crook Eagle 1 through 99
Group 1 - Crook Bear
Group 2 - Crook Lion
Group 3 - Crook Tiger
and so on

Wings that currently have two word call signs might need to make some changes.

That just sounds like an even bigger mess to me.  Expecially since I am in a wing which has a 2 word callsign (Charter Oak) and no groups.  I am curious to see what they say at the next staff call about this.

[Matt]

That just sounds like an even bigger mess to me. Expecially since I am in a wing which has a 2 word callsign (Charter Oak) and no groups. I am curious to see what they say at the next staff call about this.

Yep, sounds like something the AF would do....

[shorning]

You want to play with their freqs, you gotta play by their rules.  AFFMA isn't very flexible.  They play by their rules.

[JaL5597]

You want to play with their freqs, you gotta play by their rules.  AFFMA isn't very flexible.  They play by their rules.

I understand that.  I am just curious as to whats gonna happen. 

[Schmidty06]

As I understand, current AF callsigns are given on a "per unit" basis, meaning each squadron would have a different word prefix, and a standardized two-digit suffix.  Example, let's say squadron 1's call is "Spectre" and squadron 2's call is "Angel."  The 01 suffix would be for the unit commander, 02 his deputy, and etc down the line.

So, let's say Squadron 2's deputy wants to talk to Squadron 1's Latrine officer.  The conversation would probably sound something like this: "Spectre 99, this is Angel 02, We need you to restock HQ's "recepticles", over."

Now, this in no way, shape, or form makes things easy because you need to have a callsign list to know just who is who, especially in big wings.

Montana Wing currently has a three-digit, block-style callsign system.  Each squadron has a block of callsigns, usually with only 50 callsigns per block.

[arajca]

One of the concerns is what the AF Freq. Manager will call the "unit". Will it be the wing, group, squadron, or some other definition? I know the new AFI regard CAP lists the squadron as the basic operating unit in CAP, as do CAP regs, but until we know what they are going to call it, we're still guessing.

[Schmidty06]

I feel that we could handle squadron callsigns, but group doesn't seem to allow for enough available callsigns.

[arajca]

It's not what we coold or could not handle, it's what the AF says the unit is that will matter for this.

[shorning]

What could happen is the wings get a callsign, then each "unit" that needed a number would be assigned one.  By unit I do not mean group, squadron, or flight.  I mean "asset" like vehicles, aircraft, squadron. 

If we move to this system, I wouldn't be surprised if we needed to move away from the personal callsigns.  I know that would be a sore spot with CAP members, but no one in the AF has a "personal" callsign.  In fact no one has a "personal" radio.  People are assigned radios if they are needed to accomplish the mission. 

Interestingly, we could give a squadron one callsign, say "Hamster 51", and other "sub-units" could use a suffix.  For example, the squadron commander could be "Hamster 51A" (pronounced "Hamster Five One Alpha".  It just a thought.  On multi-place aircraft, the AF uses this method.  The pilot is "A", the co-pilot is "B", etc.  On large aircraft you use more letters.  In the past I've been "Bookshelf ##Q"  and "Razor ##S" (At least for training.  Operational callsigns were different) when I've needed to identify me specifically.  Otherwise we all used the same callsign (but we were on different nets).

It will be interesting to see what we end up with.

[arajca]

Unfortunetely, adding letters to a callsign, as easy as that is, is prohibited from what I have gathered from the discussion.

[shorning]

Well, it is and it isn't (in the AF).  It's definitely not a routine practice.  It's usually only used in very specific circumstance.  It really isn't a good solution for CAP any way.

[Jerry]

I agree that it is not really a good thing for CAP. And why change something that has worked well for eons? I think it would be a good thing that things that are associated with a Wing would be done away with for security reasons.  But  the "sore" point with *some* CAP members is very real and might result in the resignations and non-renewals of many members.  So much of the volunteer nature of CAP has been changed that, IMHO, it is a detriment .  Often it seems as tho the powers-that-be forget that we ARE volunteer and each person has a limit so to what he can, or WILL, do for CAP. That is also evident in the ES program where the requirements to remain ES-qualified  resulted in HUNDREDS of people dropping out of the ES mission; they simply cannot, or WILL not do all the things that are in the task book to remain current.  They have lives and families to deal with and CAP, to them, is an OPTION, not a necessity!   I've seen the lists of personnel who dropped their 101 quals, and read about ES managers wondering why. But THAT's another subject!

WRT the removal of the personal Wing/Unit/[personal callsigns, it  just wouldn't be a good thing. It would further re-define the volunteer nature of CAP and not in a good way. CAP should also be FUN and that FUN should be part of the "pay" for our CAP work! Take that away and ya got nuttin'!

We will just have to wait and see. Usually, things turn out to be not so bad as they first seem.  What I HOPE happens, they DO get rid of the current, silly callsigns like CAP-----such n such, and CAPKittyHawk--------, etc. I've alway hated those because they tend to trivialize the callsign structure before the public who have scanner and HF abilities. One problem I see is that, because, CAP IS volunteer you can't assign fluid, random callsigns to an event or just a unit.  CAP members are not "on duty" in the same sense as USAF personnel; they are at work, on errands, on vacation, and these people have to be mustered to duty.  Personally assigned callsigns quickly identify an individual without revealing to outsiders his identity. He also knows that "HE" is the one being called. He is the one that is needed.  It is the reason for the "ancient" personal call system  to start with!



So, perhaps, our callsigns will end up being BlueDog 97 or something like that! It'll probabaly work out all right and not be as bad as we speculate!


Lt/Col Jerry Oxendine
CAP'in' since 1964

[Buzz]

Sounds like we are going to the standard military system.

Despite the whimpering and whining, we're better off for it, and in no time most folks will probably say that they wouldn't go back.

The most likely implementation will be something like:

Hawaii = Pineapple
Squadron at Laie = Seaside
Haole, Hapa, 2LT = 13

Thus, Hapa Haole's identifier is "Pineapple Seaside One Three."

If the squadron at Waimea is Slam, then the call signs will be "Pineapple Slam" with whatever number.

See how it works?  First word gives the wing, second identifies the unit within a wing, then the number ident the individuals.  The wing DC may also be able to assign unit identifiers as needed, such as for specific missions.

It works well for the full-time guys, to handle larger gaggles than we ever will worry about.  I think we'll be okay.

[Buzz]

I agree that it is not really a good thing for CAP. And why change something that has worked well for eons?

Because this works better.  And it won't be the first time callsigns have changed.  When I was a cadet, CAWG had three sets of callsigns -- White Bear, Brown Bear and Black Bear, assigned to the type of unit (air, mobile or base).  That was scrapped (amid much wailing and gnashing of teeth), but it worked out okay.

I think it would be a good thing that things that are associated with a Wing would be done away with for security reasons.  But  the "sore" point with *some* CAP members is very real and might result in the resignations and non-renewals of many members.

Anyone who is here just for a callsign isn't up to the mission in the first place. 

WRT the removal of the personal Wing/Unit/[personal callsigns, it  just wouldn't be a good thing.

You've staged on this one.  We have no idea whether there will be "personal" callsigns or not.  All we know is that the callsign will be two words and two numbers.  What the limits will be remain to be seen.

We will just have to wait and see. Usually, things turn out to be not so bad as they first seem.  What I HOPE happens, they DO get rid of the current, silly callsigns like CAP-----such n such, and CAPKittyHawk--------, etc. I've alway hated those because they tend to trivialize the callsign structure before the public who have scanner and HF abilities. One problem I see is that, because, CAP IS volunteer you can't assign fluid, random callsigns to an event or just a unit.

Why couldn't you?  There are HOW many millions of possible two-word combinations?  Oshkosh could have Eight Ball and 00 - 99, or Eightball Tacit 00 - 99. Eightball Thunder 00 - 99, Eightball Target 00 - 99 and so on.  There is no way to run out of callsigns before we run out of operators.

So, perhaps, our callsigns will end up being BlueDog 97 or something like that! It'll probabaly work out all right and not be as bad as we speculate!

That's my prediction.  as I said, the full time guys have been doing really well with this system since before you and I were cadets.