Operational Plan for Radio Channel Use

[wuzafuzz]

Many members have expressed confusion regarding the wide variety of radio channels in the narrow band channel plan.  The loss of CAT and simplex use on a common repeater output really changes the procedures members are accustomed to.

As a result my squadron commander has asked me to create a standing operational plan defining how our squadron will use available channels.  This plan will of course be subject to, and compatible with, plans published at higher echelons (none I'm aware of currently address the new channel plan).  It would be in effect at all times except when superseded by communications plans for missions or events.

At first blush my thought is to create a comm plan just like I would for an event or mission.  I would publish the appropriate ICS forms and supporting Word docs on our squadron website.  The plan would be accompanied by periodic training/reminders.

Before starting, I'm curious to hear what other units may be doing along these lines.

[RADIOMAN015]

Many members have expressed confusion regarding the wide variety of radio channels in the narrow band channel plan.  The loss of CAT and simplex use on a common repeater output really changes the procedures members are accustomed to.

As a result my squadron commander has asked me to create a standing operational plan defining how our squadron will use available channels.  Before starting, I'm curious to hear what other units may be doing along these lines.

With narrow band implementation and the upcoming loss of the use of Vertex 150 portables, many units are just basically an army of one or two radios at best .  You are fortunate IF you have so many compliant radios that you need to write a plan for local use  .   I'd suggest you look at your wing's plans for guidance.  Simplex wise in the past I would run all the units ground assets (portables, base, mobiles) on TAC#3 (wideband) & access our local repeater IF necessary.   In your planning you should be realistic on communication range (run a test if you have any doubts)  based upon the type of radio equipment you have available.  IF everyone has 25/50 watt mobiles & bases with external antennas than simplex is best for local operations.  IF however most have 5 watt portables, than hopefully you've got a local repeater & that will be your primary method.  HOWEVER, again testing simplex even with portables is a good idea because repeaters can go down & your plan should consider this.
GOOD LUCK!
RM
       

[Eclipse]

RADIOMAN has a good point, and further to that, even for those that still own compliant equipment most do not have the ability to easily program the radio themselves.  They get whatever plan the tech decided to implement that day.

[IceNine]

I think you are missing the point.

I think he is asking for a plan on how to use the standard programming, not a standard program.

The new channel plan is confusing especially when all you see if the plan and not the definitions for each channel.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think you are missing the point.

I think he is asking for a plan on how to use the standard programming, not a standard program.

The new channel plan is confusing especially when all you see if the plan and not the definitions for each channel.

Overall I think it is pretty simple CC#1/CC#2 can include ever radio (base, mobile, portable, & aircraft), the specific plan designates which one to use.   AIR#1/AIR#2 is air to ground & air to air, the specific plan designates which one to use.  GUARD #1, all aircraft to monitor, all mobile/portable & ground stations to monitor when feasible OR as designated in the plan.  TAC #1 primarily for local operations, portables to mobile or base, may be also used by aircraft in limited circumstances, again whatever the plan states.
Generally, many wings try to keep everyone on the same simplex channel during small missions.  IF the mission expands repeaters as well as an air/ground would get added.   

Unfortunately (or fortunately) it's what the wing (and maybe local communications plan) indicates.   Remember that a plan may have to be modified due to circumstances (e.g. interference on the channel/frequency, nearby wing using the same channel, radio programming errors (make sure you check EVERY radio & EVERY channel that gets reprogrammed BEFORE you really need to use it, etc)
RM         

[wuzafuzz]

Ice Nine hit the nail on the head.  I'm only looking to standardize how we use existing channels programmed in Corporate owned radios.  No custom programming is considered.  All by the book.

Radioman015's ideas are tracking pretty close to mine.  Designate a "usual" simplex channel and repeater channel, with instructions to monitor Guard whenever possible.  Easy to understand and remember for non-radioheads.  Still, I'm curious to hear what others think.  Plus this conversation may prove useful for those who haven't considered this yet :-)

[arajca]

With the NB transition and repeater replacement, most wing comm staffs are busy. One project that will be starting in every wing after the transition is reviwing and revising the wing communications plans. I know COWG has asked for input from all levels of communications officers, but has received very little.

[wuzafuzz]

With the NB transition and repeater replacement, most wing comm staffs are busy. One project that will be starting in every wing after the transition is reviwing and revising the wing communications plans. I know COWG has asked for input from all levels of communications officers, but has received very little.

I saw that and plan to send you something fairly soon.  As you say, there is a lot going on lately.  But that keeps it interesting!

For now all I've done is create an ICS 205 with our "normal" comm plan, as kind of a place holder until something supersedes it.  It's been sent to my Group Comm Officer as well as squadron ES and operations folks for review/comment.

Eric
RMR-CO-147 Communications Officer

[desertengineer1]

Many members have expressed confusion regarding the wide variety of radio channels in the narrow band channel plan.  The loss of CAT and simplex use on a common repeater output really changes the procedures members are accustomed to.

As a result my squadron commander has asked me to create a standing operational plan defining how our squadron will use available channels.  This plan will of course be subject to, and compatible with, plans published at higher echelons (none I'm aware of currently address the new channel plan).  It would be in effect at all times except when superseded by communications plans for missions or events.

At first blush my thought is to create a comm plan just like I would for an event or mission.  I would publish the appropriate ICS forms and supporting Word docs on our squadron website.  The plan would be accompanied by periodic training/reminders.

Before starting, I'm curious to hear what other units may be doing along these lines.

I'm heading the NB transition efforts at wing level here. 

A couple of initial thoughts...

Your first point of contact needs to be the Wing DC.  He/she has access to a large set of resources and can get you up to speed on any transitional plans.  Wings DC's are the ADCON on interim plans until the national code plugs are finalized.  There are things we are allowed to do until that time.

Regardless of the current status, expect your portion of the Ops Plan to be way more detailed than in the past.  Instead of channel designators particular to individual states, repeaters and simplex channels will have universal designators such as P55 or V1 - and that will be the same ROE across the nation.

Wing DC's have traded many versions of Comm Plans between each other.  Get with your DC for the latest.  Remember, of course, that it's still a work in progress.

Remember also that many wings don't know what channels the repeaters will be operating until they drop off the trucks.  But the same basic rules will still apply..  Example:

Mission base = channel XX (Simplex)
Backup #1  = Repeater YY (ex: P55)
Backup #2 = Airborne Repeater channel ZZZ (Tactical repeaters)  Quantars are going away.

XX, YY, and ZZ will depend on location and available resources.  The 205 will list channels.  HF will stay the same, but shipping of ALE units are in full swing.  Expect new modes to follow in comm plans as procedures are developed.

[wuzafuzz]

I'm heading the NB transition efforts at wing level here. 

A couple of initial thoughts...

Your first point of contact needs to be the Wing DC.  He/she has access to a large set of resources and can get you up to speed on any transitional plans.  Wings DC's are the ADCON on interim plans until the national code plugs are finalized.  There are things we are allowed to do until that time.

Regardless of the current status, expect your portion of the Ops Plan to be way more detailed than in the past.  Instead of channel designators particular to individual states, repeaters and simplex channels will have universal designators such as P55 or V1 - and that will be the same ROE across the nation.

Wing DC's have traded many versions of Comm Plans between each other.  Get with your DC for the latest.  Remember, of course, that it's still a work in progress.

Remember also that many wings don't know what channels the repeaters will be operating until they drop off the trucks.  But the same basic rules will still apply..  Example:

Mission base = channel XX (Simplex)
Backup #1  = Repeater YY (ex: P55)
Backup #2 = Airborne Repeater channel ZZZ (Tactical repeaters)  Quantars are going away.

XX, YY, and ZZ will depend on location and available resources.  The 205 will list channels.  HF will stay the same, but shipping of ALE units are in full swing.  Expect new modes to follow in comm plans as procedures are developed.

Thanks for the thoughts.  I already started with my Group Comm Officer.  It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out. 

Are the Micom II's going away or will they somehow coexist alongside ALE radios? 

[arajca]

Eventually, they'll be replaced by ALE radios. No idea how long that will take.

[wuzafuzz]

Bump.

I was just told the Technisonic radios do not have transmit capability on the Guard channel positions.  Since I'm not aircrew I don't have good working knowledge of that radio yet.  Can anyone tell me if that is true?

Since we were told to monitor Guard 1 all the time, it seemed natural to use Guard 1 as a calling channel.  My proposed plan instructed everyone to scan Guard 1 all the time.  Establish contact and make immediate arrangements to switch to an agreed upon channel.  This seems a good way to overcome the lack of a universal simplex in the new plan.

If the Technisonic radio is transmit inhibited on Guard, then it's back to the drawing board.

[desertengineer1]

Bump.

I was just told the Technisonic radios do not have transmit capability on the Guard channel positions.  Since I'm not aircrew I don't have good working knowledge of that radio yet.  Can anyone tell me if that is true?

Since we were told to monitor Guard 1 all the time, it seemed natural to use Guard 1 as a calling channel.  My proposed plan instructed everyone to scan Guard 1 all the time.  Establish contact and make immediate arrangements to switch to an agreed upon channel.  This seems a good way to overcome the lack of a universal simplex in the new plan.

If the Technisonic radio is transmit inhibited on Guard, then it's back to the drawing board.

The TDFM's can transmit on Guard, as far as I know, but your wing's code plug may have TX disabled for that channel.  Check with your wing DC (or the programming guru therein) to make sure.

Of course, when the national channel plan comes, this will be whatever they decide.

[wuzafuzz]

Bump.

I was just told the Technisonic radios do not have transmit capability on the Guard channel positions.  Since I'm not aircrew I don't have good working knowledge of that radio yet.  Can anyone tell me if that is true?

Since we were told to monitor Guard 1 all the time, it seemed natural to use Guard 1 as a calling channel.  My proposed plan instructed everyone to scan Guard 1 all the time.  Establish contact and make immediate arrangements to switch to an agreed upon channel.  This seems a good way to overcome the lack of a universal simplex in the new plan.

If the Technisonic radio is transmit inhibited on Guard, then it's back to the drawing board.

The TDFM's can transmit on Guard, as far as I know, but your wing's code plug may have TX disabled for that channel.  Check with your wing DC (or the programming guru therein) to make sure.

Of course, when the national channel plan comes, this will be whatever they decide.

I ran out to the airport with another member and checked it out.  Ours did transmit on Guard 1, and the Guard 2 position transmitted on TAC1.  As you say, all bets are off for the next round of programming.

On the bright side, my efforts to create a communications plan were noticed and are now being duplicated at Group level.  :-)

[RADIOMAN015]

I think one of the short falls of ALL communications plans is the addition of a provision of a one way radio alert broadcast method on a designated CAP frequency (ies) (authorized/discussed in CAPR 100-3).   There's a reluctance now at CAP HQ Communications policy wise to release these frequencies to the membership supporting ES operations.  A simple consumer grade NFM radio scanner programmed possibly to the local area CAP repeater output frequency and/or GUARD #1 would easily add  cost effective alert capabilities for squadron members.  There's no gurantee in an emergency that local cellphone and/or land line telephones will be in service.

There's other radio communications alerting possibilities (e.g. Amateur Radio, CB, GMRS, MURS, Commercial LMR, etc), but these would cost the member's more money & potential licensing issues.
RM

[desertengineer1]

I think one of the short falls of ALL communications plans is the addition of a provision of a one way radio alert broadcast method on a designated CAP frequency (ies) (authorized/discussed in CAPR 100-3).   There's a reluctance now at CAP HQ Communications policy wise to release these frequencies to the membership supporting ES operations.  A simple consumer grade NFM radio scanner programmed possibly to the local area CAP repeater output frequency and/or GUARD #1 would easily add  cost effective alert capabilities for squadron members.  There's no gurantee in an emergency that local cellphone and/or land line telephones will be in service.

There's other radio communications alerting possibilities (e.g. Amateur Radio, CB, GMRS, MURS, Commercial LMR, etc), but these would cost the member's more money & potential licensing issues.
RM

The end goal of the national channel plan is to eliminate the frequency element completely.  The reasons are varied, but mostly driven by new spectrum rules, AF moves from WB to NB, and the limited availability (and reduced need) of equipment that meets the new rules.  In a nutshell, we're well behind the curve compared to everyone else and it's time.

The comm plans will have to reflect this accordingly.

On the good side, the only hard operational difference will be...  designations of channels rather than frequencies.

Our comm plans already have this in place.  For example, Mission Base primary will be V1.  Secondary will be the fixed repeater, designated as (for example) R51.  In the event of no repeater, airborne repeaters will be used (the new tactical repeaters are arriving at wings now).

Not much will change if the comm plans are written as they should be.  Just the channel designators will.

Of course, there are a few intermediate cases like VHF AM Air-Air which will not change.

More capability is on the way for HF (ALE and ALE Mobile's shipping now).

The majority of the work falls on some very tired comm officers.  Intermediate code plugs and repeater installs have us really busy.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think one of the short falls of ALL communications plans is the addition of a provision of a one way radio alert broadcast method on a designated CAP frequency (ies) (authorized/discussed in CAPR 100-3).  There's other radio communications alerting possibilities (e.g. Amateur Radio, CB, GMRS, MURS, Commercial LMR, etc), but these would cost the member's more money & potential licensing issues.
RM

Not much will change if the comm plans are written as they should be.  Just the channel designators will.

Of course, there are a few intermediate cases like VHF AM Air-Air which will not change.

More capability is on the way for HF (ALE and ALE Mobile's shipping now).

Well my exact point in communications planning is that it needs to be "realistically" addressing the reduced number of VHF radio communications assets that will be available when narrow banding is completed.  (Remember all those modified VHF portables -- Vertex 150's will be gone). 

Frankly where usable cellphones will be the primary mobile voice communication method available, since the majority of senior members (as well as many cadets) have this capability & require no additional costly purchases.  Also the internet & email/sms text messages to telephones should be planned to be used.

I think from a communicatons planning standpoint we need to take a "mixed" network(s) approach to communications.  We may find that the internet (email msgs) and or cellphone voice network to or at certain geographic locations & than reintroduction of the message traffic will be by radio (formal radio message handling is a lost art now in CAP) to areas not reachable by land/cellphone.     

Frankly, a more critical review of the effectivness of ALL communications plans needs to be accomplished on an ongoing basis.  CAP's missions/operations continues whether new repeaters are being installed or not.  However, I do agree with you that there's limitations on radio communications staffing & perhaps there should be a plan on how to increase this staffing.
RM 

[desertengineer1]

Absolutely, and with respect to "realistic" comm plans, I'll borrow a phrase from the military life:  "Train as you fight and fight as you train"

Go ahead and put all of these into both the non FOUO comm plan (listed generically and by channels) attachment and the FOUO ICS 205.  We certainly do it, and pretty much everything is in there (Cell phone --> voice/text/data, Internet --> email/WIMRS/imagery/mission planning, and so on).

I make SAREX warlords and evaluators work for it   

Channel plans will be the same.  Primary, backup, repeaters, high-bird, they are all listed according to zones/channel designators.

All of our radios should be narrowband compliant by now (or at least wings should have plenty on-hand).  Of course, there are varying degrees of "readiness" in there.  The Neutec's are NB voice, nonP25, so they will relegate down a little on the food chain.  And all of this still revolves around member's knowing and versed in the comm plan and procedures.  GOOD LUCK, and always keep involved with the wing DC's and each other.  Nobody is working in a vacuum here.

[arajca]

Neutecs are NOT narrowband compliant. Taits are.

[desertengineer1]

Neutecs are NOT narrowband compliant. Taits are.

OOPS.  My Bad.  Meant to write TAIT but the brain was thinking elsewhere.  Sorry 

[BrandonKea]

I just got my EFJohnson handheld back from being reprogrammed. Haven't had the chance to actually do any talking on the thing yet, and I'm still trying to figure out the numerous new features on the thing (Comm is NOT my strong point, admittadly).

I am glad they put NOAA WX Radio on there though.

[scooter]

When you all set up your radio plans and ask for input, don't just ask the comm people, those that are into this stuff on the technical side. Ask the users (aircrew and GT). You might get some good ideas on how to make this stuff user friendly. My experience is that the comm world gives the users too much useless info that just confuses us non comm types. There are no buttons on my radio that say narrow band, wide band, simplex or complex.

[desertengineer1]

I think one thing we fall short of (for comm) is putting forth enough information and helping everyone differentiating out what is relevent.  One one hand, we need to do a better job of engaging members to be part of the process instead of spectators.  The comm job is going to be much more work intense soon and we need the help.

On the other hand I see a lot of aircrew willing to fly hundreds of hours for the free time and fuel, don't reciprocate very much for learning the radios.  Many of them are the first to go to sleep during the training (or not bother to attend at all).  Another example is the constant complaining that the channel layout is different. 

So...  you can learn how to manually change frequencies on Comm 1 and 2 consecutively during that fully funded check ride, but the complaints come out in force about the extra couple of clicks on the NAT.   Or that you have manually put in three digits for the new CC1 channel in the TDFM?  LOL!  Sorry, you'll have to do a little better than that.

But you do make a great point - to which CAP-DC has put forth work into redoing the training programs accordingly.

We've been telling everyone from the beginning that the narrowband transition will be inherently painful - almost torturous for those managing it. 

But remember that to the basic user, not much will change other than the channel designators. 

And the days of manual frequencies are done.  Don't be surprized.  We've been warning everyone for years about it.  I can't accept the "I didn't know" argument. 

Keep in close contact with your squadron and Wing DC's.  There is a LOT if information available to them.  If they are not being responsive, keep in mind they may be really overworked with the transition.  But in the rare case they've simply "checked out" and are sand bagging - don't give up.  Keep on them until they get you the information you need.  Nothing is going to change unless everyone in CAP takes some ownership and makes it happen.

[desertengineer1]

When you all set up your radio plans and ask for input, don't just ask the comm people, those that are into this stuff on the technical side. Ask the users (aircrew and GT). You might get some good ideas on how to make this stuff user friendly. My experience is that the comm world gives the users too much useless info that just confuses us non comm types. There are no buttons on my radio that say narrow band, wide band, simplex or complex.

Scooter, one hard part in this is the fact that most users really don't get involved.  The most common response on what to do for the interim plan is complete indifference.  It then comes down to just the comm folks arranging the channel plan.  In the NB ttransition, not much changed other than the designations and the addition of about 130 channels for each repeater/tone/mode combinations.

Again, there are a lot of spectators around waiting for someone else to take charge.  My response on that is ...  Fine.  We'll take charge.  But don't complain when the channel plan isn't what you wanted and you didn't get involved when we asked for help.

[desertengineer1]

I just got my EFJohnson handheld back from being reprogrammed. Haven't had the chance to actually do any talking on the thing yet, and I'm still trying to figure out the numerous new features on the thing (Comm is NOT my strong point, admittadly).

I am glad they put NOAA WX Radio on there though.

There shouldn't be any "new" features other than P25 capability.  Did they redo the button functions?  Again, those were all in the radio capability to begin with.

I put the NOAA channels in ours as well.  The EFJ's have way more channels than we'll ever need.  Why not put them to good use?

[BrandonKea]

I just got my EFJohnson handheld back from being reprogrammed. Haven't had the chance to actually do any talking on the thing yet, and I'm still trying to figure out the numerous new features on the thing (Comm is NOT my strong point, admittadly).

I am glad they put NOAA WX Radio on there though.

There shouldn't be any "new" features other than P25 capability.  Did they redo the button functions?  Again, those were all in the radio capability to begin with.

I put the NOAA channels in ours as well.  The EFJ's have way more channels than we'll ever need.  Why not put them to good use?

Tons of "New to me" features. Before it was very lacking, now I have a backlight toggle button, the orange button has been designated as the keypad lockout button, I have a menu button with scan options and OTAR key? Whatever that is... And about 8 zones with a butt ton of channels that I assume are just ALL of the standard channels instead of the NEWG only ones...

[wuzafuzz]

A few Comm. thoughts from our recent SAREVAL Comm Plan:

• Instructing everyone to monitor GUARD 1 was a huge success.  Especially in the aircraft.  (Harder to do with the EFJ's.)  "When in doubt try Guard 1."  There are obvious limitations with simplex, but it was very useful.
• Asking everyone to mention which channel they were on was also helpful.  It was eaier to answer them when we knew which channel they were on (6 radios running in the comm shack).
• Using Skype texting as a back channel between bases failed miserably.  Even with alert volume up high, it simply didn't compete with the other noise in the shack.
• We were instructed to conduct a roll call every half hour.  We told everyone to contact us no matter what by the one hour mark, even if it meant landing and using a phone or text messaging us.  Comm isn't just radios.  We had limited need for that procedure.

So, those lessons will be mirrored in our standing comm plan.  Fortunately what started at the squadron level is now a Group level thing, and possibly a wing thing soon.  :-) 

[arajca]

I just got my EFJohnson handheld back from being reprogrammed. Haven't had the chance to actually do any talking on the thing yet, and I'm still trying to figure out the numerous new features on the thing (Comm is NOT my strong point, admittadly).

I am glad they put NOAA WX Radio on there though.

There shouldn't be any "new" features other than P25 capability.  Did they redo the button functions?  Again, those were all in the radio capability to begin with.

I put the NOAA channels in ours as well.  The EFJ's have way more channels than we'll ever need.  Why not put them to good use?

Tons of "New to me" features. Before it was very lacking, now I have a backlight toggle button, the orange button has been designated as the keypad lockout button, I have a menu button with scan options and OTAR key? Whatever that is... And about 8 zones with a butt ton of channels that I assume are just ALL of the standard channels instead of the NEWG only ones...

OTAR = Over The Air Rekeying. It's an ecryption function. It lets the radio receive an new encryption key through a radio transmission instead of hooking up a cable.

[BrandonKea]

I just got my EFJohnson handheld back from being reprogrammed. Haven't had the chance to actually do any talking on the thing yet, and I'm still trying to figure out the numerous new features on the thing (Comm is NOT my strong point, admittadly).

I am glad they put NOAA WX Radio on there though.

There shouldn't be any "new" features other than P25 capability.  Did they redo the button functions?  Again, those were all in the radio capability to begin with.

I put the NOAA channels in ours as well.  The EFJ's have way more channels than we'll ever need.  Why not put them to good use?

Tons of "New to me" features. Before it was very lacking, now I have a backlight toggle button, the orange button has been designated as the keypad lockout button, I have a menu button with scan options and OTAR key? Whatever that is... And about 8 zones with a butt ton of channels that I assume are just ALL of the standard channels instead of the NEWG only ones...

OTAR = Over The Air Rekeying. It's an ecryption function. It lets the radio receive an new encryption key through a radio transmission instead of hooking up a cable.

Sooo note to self, don't touch that! :-)

[RADIOMAN015]

A few Comm. thoughts from our recent SAREVAL Comm Plan:

• Instructing everyone to monitor GUARD 1 was a huge success.  Especially in the aircraft.  (Harder to do with the EFJ's.)  "When in doubt try Guard 1."  There are obvious limitations with simplex, but it was very useful.
• Asking everyone to mention which channel they were on was also helpful.  It was eaier to answer them when we knew which channel they were on (6 radios running in the comm shack).
• Using Skype texting as a back channel between bases failed miserably.  Even with alert volume up high, it simply didn't compete with the other noise in the shack.
• We were instructed to conduct a roll call every half hour.  We told everyone to contact us no matter what by the one hour mark, even if it meant landing and using a phone or text messaging us.  Comm isn't just radios.  We had limited need for that procedure.

Excellent to note that "GUARD 1" worked.  I'm pushing for a requirement in our wing that no matter when a CAP aircraft is flying, even on the member's dime, that they be required to monitor the new GUARD 1.  Compliance would be check by select radio stations within the wing.

Interesting you ran 6 radios in your comm center, rather than using scanning on VHF.  Could you talk a bit more about your radio plan (e.g. assuming intrasquad radios for wireless mission base staff, intrasquad/VHF portables mission base/flight line ops, repeaters for ground team, VHF CAP air/ground, & VHF CAP Guard?, and perhaps an airband multicom transceiver?). 

Could you clarify your comment on skype NOT working because of?

It's typical to have 1/2 hour check ins by aircraft & ground teams.  Agree Check ins don't necessarily mean by radio, it can be by cellphone or even msg text/email.  I personally would like to see CAP relax a stance on allowing text msg while in flight.  I think that this may be a very good "opsec" "comsec" method of sensitive information delivery.  Even if it's a one way receive method from mission base to aircraft, with the aircraft acknowleding the message number via voice on the air/ground circuit.

GREAT WORK :clap:
RM
       

[wuzafuzz]

Off the top of my head (it's lunch time at work):

Using our linked repeaters, we separated the state into two nets.

• We ran one radio on the closest linked repeater, talking to the half of the state we were in.
• Another radio dedicated to GUARD 1.  This was useful for radio checks since aircraft and ground teams had a tough time hitting the repeater from the airport.
• Another radio on the old V1, just in case.  We set it on CC1 at times, which was our primary simplex.
• An airband radio.
• An ISR for ICP comms.
• One state trunked radio that connected into our CAP repeaters in the OTHER half of the state.
• One state trunked radio that stood apart from the CAP repeater.  Back channel between ICP and remote bases.

We chose dedicated radios over scanning for a few reasons:
1.  Added complexity for the unknown MRO factor.
2.  Although we briefed everyone to state which channel they were talking on, we knew it wouldn't happen (this was our first major exercise using the new channel plan).
3.  If we scan, we will miss traffic when other channels are busy.
4.  We requested enough MRO's so no one would have to work more than two channels.  We had MSA's for notes.

I would love to tell you that item #4 worked as planned, but several of us could have kept busy with a few extra arms.

Regarding Skype:  it was loud as heck in the Comm Shack.  Air Ops and Ground Ops were in the same small room.  We had to shout them down a few times.  We just didn't hear Skype alerts.  I believe Comm should have it's own room, but I am routinely out-voted on that count.

The use of state trunked radios might raise a few eyebrows.  Our biggest use was merely to connect to the linked CAP repeaters we couldn't reach while the network was split in two.  Much like you might use a tone remote base or microwave shot.  The other trunked radio was merely a backchannel between bases, kind of like a long distance ISR. 

Arguably we could do much the same using HF.  Our (and my) HF capabilities are in need of improvement.  Since I had less than a month to plan Comm for the SAREVAL (as a CUL-T I might add), trunked liaison radios won.

So, our entire CAP radio system was heavily tasked.  Liaison radios were not used in lieu of CAP radios, but in addition to them and to enhance them.

I did try HF and want to get better with it.