Comm - How to talk with event organizers at Airshows

[noturusernamebutmine]

Ok - so let me preface by saying I am new to CAP - I am also a amateur radio operator.

So here is my question - if participating at an airshow and a local amateur radio group (as usual) is acting as "net control" and directing radio traffic for the entire event and I cannot use my amateur privileges to communicate between them and CAP - How can I then communicate with the net control?  (They need to pass traffic about where assistance by CAP is needed) Has anyone found a good solution?  FRS? Air Frequencies?

I know that with the new draft of 100-1 I would be able to not participate as a CAP member and simply "Shadow" another CAP member who can then relay the message.  Until that is enacted how do I communicate with everyone else? 

[Al Sayre]

Assign a CAP MRO to the Communications Center with a CAP radio.

[JoeTomasone]

Or the reverse: Have a ham hang out at the CAP ICP.

[maverik]

Doesn't 100-1 prohibit HAM use by CAP radios? If you had your own portable with a HAM band in there then there you go if you don't see if one of the HAM guys do.

[arajca]

100-1 prohibits use of ham freqs by CAP. It doesn't matter who owns the radio - CAP cannot use the freqs.

[wuzafuzz]

Doesn't 100-1 prohibit HAM use by CAP radios? If you had your own portable with a HAM band in there then there you go if you don't see if one of the HAM guys do.

As stated above, co-locate radio operators from the various organizations.  No regulation prevents us from talking to other organizations in person (as long as you aren't giving up our frequencies).  Infrastructure permitting, you could even talk to them using something like Skype or instant messaging.

The mere fact that we can't currently talk on each others' frequencies need not prevent us from working cooperatively.

[isuhawkeye]

+1

[noturusernamebutmine]

Thanks for the suggestions - I had considered putting a CAP member (as suggested) with the HAMs and then having them relay information across.  Though, I was hoping not having to burn a resource by having them (or me) stuck at a HAM shack just waiting for messages. 

[wuzafuzz]

Thanks for the suggestions - I had considered putting a CAP member (as suggested) with the HAMs and then having them relay information across.  Though, I was hoping not having to burn a resource by having them (or me) stuck at a HAM shack just waiting for messages.

If you actually do this soon, please share your lessons learned.  I'd love to hear how it works out for you.

[noturusernamebutmine]

Wuzafuzz - would be happy to share once completed.  The one idea I am currently toying around with (other than stationing a member at the HAM shack) is to bring a set of FRS radios.  100-1 allows use of FRS radios at airshows - and there is nothing that stipulates (that I can find) that says I cannot use FRS to communicate with the HAMs (they can use the radios just like I can).  I would then essentially have a direct link to the HAMs. 

[arajca]

Make sure are using the FRS channels and not the GMRS. Most FRS radios have both. FRS is unlicensed, so CAP can use it in limited instances (airshow support is one), but GMRS is licensed (although few do license themselves) and CAP cannot use those channels. The instructions for the particular radios will list whether the GMRS channels are on the radio and what channels they are on.

[RADIOMAN015]

Ok - so let me preface by saying I am new to CAP - I am also a amateur radio operator.

So here is my question - if participating at an airshow and a local amateur radio group (as usual) is acting as "net control" and directing radio traffic for the entire event and I cannot use my amateur privileges to communicate between them and CAP - How can I then communicate with the net control?  (They need to pass traffic about where assistance by CAP is needed) Has anyone found a good solution?  FRS? Air Frequencies?

I know that with the new draft of 100-1 I would be able to not participate as a CAP member and simply "Shadow" another CAP member who can then relay the message.  Until that is enacted how do I communicate with everyone else?

If it's not an AF funded ES mission, than strongly consider using whatever radio you personally are licensed to operate and will allow CAP's support to be effective, efficient, & safe.   Seems that Amateur Radio gives the most bang for the bucks and the airshow organizers see that fact! (It's doubtful you could even muster up enough CAP radios assets to provide that comm support.   You can also use those intrasquad radios to communicate among your group IF you have a small sector that the CAP team is responsible for (and you and other license hams could communicate with that small sector via amateur radio).  Personally, I'd stay away from FRS radios because at airshows there's lots of the general pubic using FRS.  Another option would be to try to find some surplus Multi Use Radio Service portable radios (e.g. 154.57/154.60 mhz), such as Motorola's older Spirit series VHF radios (be sure you only stay on the MURS frequencies, which are licensed by rule).   
RM

[JoeTomasone]

If it's not an AF funded ES mission, than strongly consider using whatever radio you personally are licensed to operate and will allow CAP's support to be effective, efficient, & safe.

Seems that Amateur Radio gives the most bang for the bucks

Another option would be to try to find some surplus Multi Use Radio Service

Ahhh, negative, Ghost Rider; CAP cannot use anything besides our HF, VHF, ISR, and limited FRS as discussed.    The prohibition against using Amateur Radio, for example, is codified in 100-1. 

[noturusernamebutmine]

RadioMan - I thought that radio comm on amateur frequencies regarding "CAP Business" is strictly not allowed.   Are you suggesting that airshow events are not "airforce events"? 

The part that I have struggled with is "CAP business" - to me it seems it is referring to using the frequency for internal CAP comms; which I am not.  The frequency is not being used exclusively for CAP but rather a general communication frequency for all agencies.  Quote from 100-1 "The use of frequencies in the amateur radio service to conduct CAP business including SAR/DR operations is prohibited by law. CAP members with amateur radio licenses may only use CAP frequencies for CAP operations" 

[RADIOMAN015]

RadioMan - I thought that radio comm on amateur frequencies regarding "CAP Business" is strictly not allowed.   Are you suggesting that airshow events are not "airforce events"? 

The part that I have struggled with is "CAP business" - to me it seems it is referring to using the frequency for internal CAP comms; which I am not.  The frequency is not being used exclusively for CAP but rather a general communication frequency for all agencies.  Quote from 100-1 "The use of frequencies in the amateur radio service to conduct CAP business including SAR/DR operations is prohibited by law. CAP members with amateur radio licenses may only use CAP frequencies for CAP operations"

Personally I don't see any problem with you an other licensed CAP members using your amateur radio's for appropriate communications back to the command center.  IF your member's aren't licensed amateurs, than IF you have CAP portable radio assets use those to communicate among your personnel, and you and other act as liasions back to the command post (especially if you are using those ISR low power portables).   

In this specific example, you are not on an AF assigned mission; it is not ES related,  and the "customer" has specified with is the preferred radio system to use.
RM     

[JoeTomasone]

Personally I don't see any problem with you an other licensed CAP members using your amateur radio's for appropriate communications back to the command center.

Yeah, who cares about those pesky regulations?   

In this specific example, you are not on an AF assigned mission; it is not ES related,  and the "customer" has specified with is the preferred radio system to use.
RM   

You are confusing ham radio with FRS.   FRS can be used in non-ES CAP activities; ham radio cannot be used AT ALL by anyone acting in a CAP capacity.

[Eclipse]

RadioMan - I thought that radio comm on amateur frequencies regarding "CAP Business" is strictly not allowed.   Are you suggesting that airshow events are not "airforce events"? 

The part that I have struggled with is "CAP business" - to me it seems it is referring to using the frequency for internal CAP comms; which I am not.  The frequency is not being used exclusively for CAP but rather a general communication frequency for all agencies.  Quote from 100-1 "The use of frequencies in the amateur radio service to conduct CAP business including SAR/DR operations is prohibited by law. CAP members with amateur radio licenses may only use CAP frequencies for CAP operations"

"CAP business" is anything you do as a member of Civil Air Patrol.  If you are participating in an activity such as an airshow, etc., as a private citizen, that's fine, then leave your CAP radios are home.

In this specific example, you are not on an AF assigned mission; it is not ES related,  and the "customer" has specified with is the preferred radio system to use.

100% irrelevant to the conversation - whether or not the activity is ES related has no bearing on which regulations are applicable (other than the FRS exception noted above).

[RADIOMAN015]

"CAP business" is anything you do as a member of Civil Air Patrol.  If you are participating in an activity such as an airshow, etc., as a private citizen, that's fine, then leave your CAP radios are home.

100% irrelevant to the conversation - whether or not the activity is ES related has no bearing on which regulations are applicable (other than the FRS exception noted above).

Well the orginal poster doesn't tell us what he has available for CAP radio communications assets to support this assistance to the airshow and what the unit's mission will be.

Again if he's only got 1 VHF radio and 4 intrasquads, than depending upon where the support will be provided in relation to the command post, those low powered intrasquads (or FRS) may not be adequate to provide assistance, since multiple relays would be required to communicate with the command post.  IF the support is in an area where the CAP low powered equipment can reach the command post than use that.  Otherwise there is a dilema of how to talk back to the command post effectively & efficiently.   Again it appears they've done this for years and have found that amateur radio works well and this is the preferred comm method under the provision of the ARES program.

Most units are a long way from Maxwell, trying to "serve their communities", in non ES activities.  Without more information on unit comm resources, it's difficult to develop a comm plan for him.

HOWEVER, in the end, radio communications exists to support operations, and if you need to get a bit innovative to accomplish your "specific" mission, I doubt that anyone will loose any sleep over it.    In the specific instance given, you wouldn't be circumventing the use of CAP radio equipment/radio systems.  You could still use these, however, your "liasion" radio would be your amateur radio.
RM       

[arajca]

Here's a crazy idea...

Ask the wing/group/other units to LOAN some CAP radios for this activity.

[wuzafuzz]

+1

If radio gear needed to accomplish the activity safely cannot be rounded up, then you don't do the activity.  Basic ORM.

If you can't accomplish the activity by working within the rules, you don't do the activity.  Basic integrity.  We all agreed to follow CAP regulations when we joined.

As far as liaison activity, it's simply a non-starter for a CAP member to be talking on a ham radio to accomplish their CAP duties.  In order to avoid the appearance of breaking those rules, never use your ham privileges while "working" for CAP.  Blurring the lines creates an unwelcome perception and starts you down that slippery slope.

The proposed new regs appear to allow us to request support from amateur radio groups, but IIRC they will not enable CAP members to pick up a ham radio themselves.  As stated previously, we can solve any liaison needs by hanging out in the same place as a ham radio operator who isn't wearing a CAP uniform.

I'm not anti-ham, heck I'm one too.  I just have to decide which hat I'm wearing when I go out to play.

[RADIOMAN015]

quote author=wuzafuzz link=topic=7924.msg144971#msg144971 date=1241874105]
+1

If radio gear needed to accomplish the activity safely cannot be rounded up, then you don't do the activity.  Basic ORM.

If you can't accomplish the activity by working within the rules, you don't do the activity.  Basic integrity.  We all agreed to follow CAP regulations when we joined.

As far as liaison activity, it's simply a non-starter for a CAP member to be talking on a ham radio to accomplish their CAP duties.  In order to avoid the appearance of breaking those rules, never use your ham privileges while "working" for CAP.  Blurring the lines creates an unwelcome perception and starts you down that slippery slope.

The proposed new regs appear to allow us to request support from amateur radio groups, but IIRC they will not enable CAP members to pick up a ham radio themselves.  As stated previously, we can solve any liaison needs by hanging out in the same place as a ham radio operator who isn't wearing a CAP uniform.

[/quote]

Again I really think it gets down to how many CAP members are participating in this event.  IF it's a large number than surely the unit could look at a Comm package to support this with the assistance from higher headquarters.  Again we don't know what the unit(s) participating have as far as radio equipment, both VHF portables & Intrasquad Radios, perhaps there's enough.   

The world won't end in this particular circumstance IF 1 or 2 CAP members that are also licensed ham radio operator's use their amateur radio to "liasion" with the primary radio system that the airshow officials has determined will be utilized.  No one is going to complain about this.  Now should all CAP member's use amateur radio at this function.  No I am not indorsing that.   Again there's a lot of variables in this planning.

You know in meeting our motto "citizens serving communities", we've got to develop some flexibility with planning our communications to support the mission at hand, especially in non fund AF activities.  Would the thought process be different IF that CAP unit was issued portable radios that operated on a business band or public safety frequency by show sponsor
RM     

[arajca]

There is a difference between using public safety, business, etc freqs and using ham freqs for liaison. Use of ham freqs is specifically prohibited, while use of the others is not. It is only restricted to work communicate with other agencies and not for our internal use. A CAP comm station using VTAC1 to communicate with the incident comm station is acceptable.

[♠SARKID♠]

The world won't end in this particular circumstance IF 1 or 2 CAP members that are also licensed ham radio operator's use their amateur radio to "liasion" with the primary radio system that the airshow officials has determined will be utilized.  No one is going to complain about this.

I think you might be close to alone in that assumption.  I'd roll some heads if I found out that was going on.

[maverik]

I agree but heads would roll administratively (well I'd start with the SQ CC and move up the chain.)

[arajca]

I agree but heads would roll administratively (well I'd start with the SQ CC and move up the chain.)

I'd start with the members in question.

[RADIOMAN015]

Ok - so let me preface by saying I am new to CAP - I am also a amateur radio operator.

So here is my question - if participating at an airshow and a local amateur radio group (as usual) is acting as "net control" and directing radio traffic for the entire event and I cannot use my amateur privileges to communicate between them and CAP - How can I then communicate with the net control?  (They need to pass traffic about where assistance by CAP is needed) Has anyone found a good solution?  FRS? Air Frequencies?

When you have completed this "citizens serving communities" mission, please let us know how you maintained communications with CAP members from the "command post".
RM 

[noturusernamebutmine]

Thank you all for your posts - yes I will be sure to let you know how it turns out. 

FYI - (in reference to some earlier posts) the question was not about how many radios I had available to use among CAP members it was regarding how to communicate between two groups: The HAMs and CAP at an airshow. 

Thanks again all!

[noturusernamebutmine]

So time to follow up - I know it has been awhile.  Well sadly at the event I was worried about - there actually where not a group of organized hams running comms at the airshow.  Instead the airshow ops had a number of different radios for different purposes (ended up being a challenge).  That day I think I ended up with about 5 radios strapped to me - all for different purposes.  Wasn't exactly what I had in mind - but I was actually able to coordinate with everyone I needed to in a efficient manner. 

In regards to the HAM issue - I have decided to purchase my own FRS radios that I can use to give to the HAMs at the event.  I will still carry my HAM radio and monitor their frequency - but any two way communication will be done with the FRS radio.  Though I think there is something new in the regs regarding this.....I know someone will reply quoting the new regs in regards to HAMs and CAP. 

Thanks all for your help!

[JoeTomasone]

The regs regarding FRS have not changed; they cannot be used for any ES activity (training or actual) unless a victim is believed to possess one.    They can be used for NON-ES activities, but the same rules apply as for all other radios -- callsigns, need BCUT, etc.     

As far as using them for liaison purposes, I don't think it is permissible under the old OR new regs; follow the logic here.


CAPR 100-1, section 11 deals with "other agencies" but spends most of its time discussing SHARES.   Then there is this section:

11-6. Liaison Radios. Liaison Radios are legal to be used in other radio services outside of CAP and are maintained in inventory for that purpose. A small number of these radios, as determined by operational requirements, may be used for communication with other departments and agencies. Such operations shall be used only on authorized frequencies to conduct official CAP business during Joint Operations, in accordance with a CAP and CAP-USAF approved Memorandum of Understanding.    (emphasis mine)

The MOA between CAP/CAP-USAF and the American Radio Relay League (which, of course, does not speak for amateur radio as a whole, but for its members alone) does not provide for what hams would call "public service operations" -- communications for airshows, marathons, etc -- but only for emergencies and training for emergencies.

(http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/mou/CAP.pdf)

...So it seems that the only permissible on-the-air liaison with hams would have to be with members of the ARRL specifically (through their Amateur Radio Emergency Service -- ARES) and only for actual or simulated disasters.

Most liaison activities between CAP and hams that I have observed have been in co-located facilities -- i.e. one ham and one CAP member with their respective radios in the same room passing traffic in person from one net to the other.

[RADIOMAN015]

The regs regarding FRS have not changed; they cannot be used for any ES activity (training or actual) unless a victim is believed to possess one.    They can be used for NON-ES activities, but the same rules apply as for all other radios -- callsigns, need BCUT, etc.     

As far as using them for liaison purposes, I don't think it is permissible under the old OR new regs; follow the logic here.

Most liaison activities between CAP and hams that I have observed have been in co-located facilities -- i.e. one ham and one CAP member with their respective radios in the same room passing traffic in person from one net to the other.

I think we get too carried away with our comm regulations alleged restrictions as opposed to ensuring we are providing appropriate quality communications support for operations.

IF another agency has large numbers of portable radios available (whatever radio system, public safety, business, MURS, etc.) that are offered to CAP, I don't see why we couldn't use those radios in a specific non AF type mission support activity.   Most CAP units after the rebanding had far fewer portable radios corporate as well as individual member (e.g. lost use of all Vertex 150's) to support operations.   Generally the Table of Allowance only allows for 2 VHF portables for each ground team.   Squadron's might also have 4 ISR low power portables.  Surely we can't support a very large mission (e.g. air show health & safety patrols) without having to spend way too much time & money (for travel) getting other units to lend radios for the support.
RM     

[argentip]

I think we get too carried away with our comm regulations alleged restrictions as opposed to ensuring we are providing appropriate quality communications support for operations.

If by "getting too carried away" you mean actually following the regulations, then Yes, I guess we are guilty.  The Amateur vs CAP topic has been debated so many times and the same conclusion is always reached.  The conclusion is "That's what the regulation says and we must follow it."  If you don't want to follow it, you don't have to participate in the activity.  If you think that it needs to change, write up a proposal and send it up your chain of command and let your Wing Comander take it to the National Board.  That's the way members can request changes to regulations in this organization.  We can't just go around disregarding regulations because we don't agree with them, though.

[Eclipse]

IF another agency has large numbers of portable radios available (whatever radio system, public safety, business, MURS, etc.) that are offered to CAP, I don't see why we couldn't use those radios in a specific non AF type mission support activity.

Because the regs say we can't.

Most CAP units after the rebanding had far fewer portable radios corporate as well as individual member (e.g. lost use of all Vertex 150's) to support operations.   Generally the Table of Allowance only allows for 2 VHF portables for each ground team.   Squadron's might also have 4 ISR low power portables.  Surely we can't support a very large mission (e.g. air show health & safety patrols) without having to spend way too much time & money (for travel) getting other units to lend radios for the support.

Our TOA's don't account for airshows and "safety patrols" (whatever that means) because that is not an AFAM.  AFAM's involve coherent ground or UDF teams that are required to stay together, which means 1-2 VHF radios and ISR's for the rest of the team meets the requirement.

Interestingly, with all the posts here, no one has suggested simply calling the other agency on the phone, or texting them, or emailing them, etc.. Cheap, plentiful, secure, and fully within regs.

[arajca]

IF another agency has large numbers of portable radios available (whatever radio system, public safety, business, MURS, etc.) that are offered to CAP, I don't see why we couldn't use those radios in a specific non AF type mission support activity.   Most CAP units after the rebanding had far fewer portable radios corporate as well as individual member (e.g. lost use of all Vertex 150's) to support operations.   Generally the Table of Allowance only allows for 2 VHF portables for each ground team.   Squadron's might also have 4 ISR low power portables.  Surely we can't support a very large mission (e.g. air show health & safety patrols) without having to spend way too much time & money (for travel) getting other units to lend radios for the support.
RM   

Some radical left wing group affectionately referred to as the Federal Communications Commission sets the rules for non-government radio systems. You mention MURS, business, public safety, etc. Each of these has their own rules and requirements. Now, if a agency want to loan CAP members radios at an airshow to conduct airshow business and operations, the CUL or project officer needs to review what the restrictions are.  It may be entirely legal in one case, while another may not be. This involves a crazy idea called planning. True, it is more work than merely grabbing whatever radios are handy, but it is something that needs to be done. Also consider that on large scale incidents, developing a communications plan is required. This can help CULs practice that skill.

[JoeTomasone]

IF another agency has large numbers of portable radios available (whatever radio system, public safety, business, MURS, etc.) that are offered to CAP, I don't see why we couldn't use those radios in a specific non AF type mission support activity.

Now, if a agency want to loan CAP members radios at an airshow to conduct airshow business and operations, the CUL or project officer needs to review what the restrictions are.

Prohibited by 100-1.  You can't just take radios from an agency and use them for internal CAP comms:

11-5. CAP Participation in Government Agencies' Communications Programs. CAP stations operating on non-CAP frequencies must have written authorization from the licensed agency. A copy of the FCC license or the federal authorization must also be obtained. The letter (copy or original) and radio information are combined with a SFAF and sent to the NTC. (The original letter may be kept on file at the wing level.) CAP use of government agencies' frequencies is limited to liaison communications for coordination between the two organizations.  Non-CAP assigned frequencies will not be used to satisfy internal CAP-to-CAP communications requirements.

[argentip]

IF another agency has large numbers of portable radios available (whatever radio system, public safety, business, MURS, etc.) that are offered to CAP, I don't see why we couldn't use those radios in a specific non AF type mission support activity.

Now, if a agency want to loan CAP members radios at an airshow to conduct airshow business and operations, the CUL or project officer needs to review what the restrictions are.

Prohibited by 100-1.  You can't just take radios from an agency and use them for internal CAP comms:

11-5. CAP Participation in Government Agencies' Communications Programs. CAP stations operating on non-CAP frequencies must have written authorization from the licensed agency. A copy of the FCC license or the federal authorization must also be obtained. The letter (copy or original) and radio information are combined with a SFAF and sent to the NTC. (The original letter may be kept on file at the wing level.) CAP use of government agencies' frequencies is limited to liaison communications for coordination between the two organizations.  Non-CAP assigned frequencies will not be used to satisfy internal CAP-to-CAP communications requirements.

But there is a possibility that CAP could use a non-CAP frequency for liason purposes and run internal communications on CAP frequencies.  MIWG did this for the air show at Selfridge ANGB this year.  The 127th FW had an 800MHz special event channel set up and gave us a radio to use if they needed us. 

[JoeTomasone]

But there is a possibility that CAP could use a non-CAP frequency for liason purposes and run internal communications on CAP frequencies.  MIWG did this for the air show at Selfridge ANGB this year.  The 127th FW had an 800MHz special event channel set up and gave us a radio to use if they needed us.

That wasn't what was being proposed.    What Radioman was saying was that they could get some agency to lend them a bunch of portables for use at an airshow or other event.     My understanding is that USAF & CAP have inherent authorization to use each other's radios for liaison purposes; handled at the CAP-USAF level.

[RADIOMAN015]

IF another agency has large numbers of portable radios available (whatever radio system, public safety, business, MURS, etc.) that are offered to CAP, I don't see why we couldn't use those radios in a specific non AF type mission support activity.

Because the regs say we can't.

Most CAP units after the rebanding had far fewer portable radios corporate as well as individual member (e.g. lost use of all Vertex 150's) to support operations.   Generally the Table of Allowance only allows for 2 VHF portables for each ground team.   Squadron's might also have 4 ISR low power portables.  Surely we can't support a very large mission (e.g. air show health & safety patrols) without having to spend way too much time & money (for travel) getting other units to lend radios for the support.

Our TOA's don't account for airshows and "safety patrols" (whatever that means) because that is not an AFAM.  AFAM's involve coherent ground or UDF teams that are required to stay together, which means 1-2 VHF radios and ISR's for the rest of the team meets the requirement.

Interestingly, with all the posts here, no one has suggested simply calling the other agency on the phone, or texting them, or emailing them, etc.. Cheap, plentiful, secure, and fully within regs.

I think the reg CAPR 100-1, para 11-5, specifically relates to programming non CAP radio system frequencies & using them in CAP owned radio equipment assets as an alternative to the CAP radio system that is already available in the radio and should be used.

The CAP regulation does not address (one way or the other) non AF Mission activity participation when the host customer specifies or lends the radio equipment necessary to support that non AF mission to CAP.  (which is permissible).   

I want to be very specific about use of other radio systems.  It's in local activities like in parking cars, giving directions, patrolling & reporting safety/security/health issues, etc by a  fairly large group of CAP members that can't be supported by available CAP radio assets.

As far as cellphones go, the equipment works fine in a non stressed comm environment, but if something happens (e.g. vehicle or aircraft crashes near or on event spectators), it's likely the cellphone system will be overwhelmed with calls & not accessible in the immediate area of the event.  Also from a tactical communications for operational support, a poor way to conduct comms because not all participants can hear the voice brodcasts at the same time.  That's why law enforcement no longer uses cellphones during tactical raids but uses low power portables to talk with all team members.

It really gets down to IF you can get enough CAP radios to support a non AF type mission your unit/group is participating in, than by all means use the CAP radios.  IF you can't than look at the alternatives that are available to you.  There's going to be risk & benefits with ANY radio/wireless system(s) you choose to use.
RM   

[JoeTomasone]

I think the reg CAPR 100-1, para 11-5, specifically relates to programming non CAP radio system frequencies & using them in CAP owned radio equipment assets as an alternative to the CAP radio system that is already available in the radio and should be used.

To say that is to assume that the word "station" (as used in "CAP stations operating on non-CAP frequencies") always refers to a piece of equipment and never to a person, which is a false assumption that is clearly evident with even a causal glance at 100-1.   You are free to interpret as you wish, of course, but my read of that line conveys the impression of a person, NOT a piece of equipment.   This opens up the possibility that the equipment in question is NOT a CAP asset (nor a personally-owned asset).

The CAP regulation does not address (one way or the other) non AF Mission activity participation when the host customer specifies or lends the radio equipment necessary to support that non AF mission to CAP.  (which is permissible).   

I'm not sure how you are interpreting this line, then:  "Non-CAP assigned frequencies will not be used to satisfy internal CAP-to-CAP communications."

I want to be very specific about use of other radio systems.  It's in local activities like in parking cars, giving directions, patrolling & reporting safety/security/health issues, etc by a  fairly large group of CAP members that can't be supported by available CAP radio assets.

...Which sounds exactly like "internal CAP-to-CAP communications" to me.

It really gets down to IF you can get enough CAP radios to support a non AF type mission your unit/group is participating in, than by all means use the CAP radios.  IF you can't than look at the alternatives that are available to you.  There's going to be risk & benefits with ANY radio/wireless system(s) you choose to use.
RM   

That's the point -- the regulations offer NO alternatives -- except FRS radios for non-ES activities.   

I've been the Comms Officer for large events and one Encampment where arrangements were made to secure enough comm gear long before the event.    I've had cases where we had three nets -- one on VHF, one on ISR, and one on FRS.   

If you decide you want to grab a bunch of portables from some agency and use them for CAP Comms, hey, that's on you.   However, I do not see how you will justify yourself if and when you are called on the carpet with a copy of 100-1 in front of you.

[RADIOMAN015]

That's the point -- the regulations offer NO alternatives -- except FRS radios for non-ES activities.   

If you decide you want to grab a bunch of portables from some agency and use them for CAP Comms, hey, that's on you.   However, I do not see how you will justify yourself if and when you are called on the carpet with a copy of 100-1 in front of you.

I don't see this as a very big issue in SPECIFICALLY supporting NON ES type activities (which again CAP doesn't support radio comm wise anyways by Table of Allowance authorizations & funding), especially community events, that CAP is helping with & there is an offer by the "customer" to provide the radio communications equipment.   

One has to balance off the unreimbursed total cost of obtaining & controlling all those CAP portable radio assets with readily available local alternatives.  (surely using those $1.7K portables in the P25 digital CAI mode  to park cars is a goal we should all strive for, isn't it  )
RM

[RedFox24]

CAP comms plan is that we dont play with others.  Peroid.  We dont have served agencies, other than the USAF.  We have no need and never will have a need to liaison with another agency because we don't work with other agencies. 

We have our secret squirrel frequencies that we cant share but if you need to know Google them.  CAP cant talk to anyone other than CAP, We should never attempt to talk anyone other than CAP and we have no need to talk to anyone other than CAP and if we do we don't need radios, there are cell phones, text messages and smoke signals, they never fail to work.  We don't even need radios to talk to each other, we have cell, land line, text, email and ESP. (or is that ESPN?)

Besides, CAP shouldn't be doing anything related to air shows either.  When I was Squadron and Group Commander I forbid participation in air shows other than a recruiting booth or such.  No parking cars or airplanes or what ever.  That is not our mission either. Other than recruiting air shows serve no purpose for CAP.   And I think personally that air shows have no purpose period. 

I am sure that our leaders at NHQ are working right now to get our interagency radios ready for a time in which someone more important than us on this board determines that we will ever need to talk to anyone other than CAP.  I am sure they have the soup cans they are just trying to find a ball of twine long enough.  But that, brand of soup can and length of twine, is most likely FOUO also......

There is an extreme need for a sarscam font for parts of this post.   

[Eclipse]

We have our secret squirrel frequencies that we cant share but if you need to know Google them. 

Cite, please...

[RiverAux]

We have our secret squirrel frequencies that we cant share but if you need to know Google them. 

Cite, please...

http://www.google.com

[Eclipse]

Um, no - the sites where our frequencies are posted. Saying you can Google for them, and actually presenting sites with that information are two different things.

[JoeTomasone]

I don't see this as a very big issue in SPECIFICALLY supporting NON ES type activities (which again CAP doesn't support radio comm wise anyways by Table of Allowance authorizations & funding), especially community events, that CAP is helping with & there is an offer by the "customer" to provide the radio communications equipment.   

Like I said, if you want to ignore regs and do what you want to do, that's your business.

One has to balance off the unreimbursed total cost of obtaining & controlling all those CAP portable radio assets with readily available local alternatives.

You are 100% correct.  They call those who do that "Command".  Command, unfortunately, appears not to agree with that sentiment.

[JoeTomasone]

Besides, CAP shouldn't be doing anything related to air shows either.  When I was Squadron and Group Commander I forbid participation in air shows other than a recruiting booth or such.  No parking cars or airplanes or what ever.  That is not our mission either. Other than recruiting air shows serve no purpose for CAP.   And I think personally that air shows have no purpose period. 

The local Group has supported the local base at their airshow for years.   No parking duties, mostly assistance with ensuring that the crowd does not approach the restricted static aircraft, acting as eyes for any issues (mostly medical), etc.    They work mostly hand-in-hand with the USAF folks, and it's a great relationship builder for both.    I think this was a large part of the reason that USAF gave the Squadron that meets on base a very nice (and much upgraded) building of their own to meet in.

[Eclipse]

Besides, CAP shouldn't be doing anything related to air shows either.  When I was Squadron and Group Commander I forbid participation in air shows other than a recruiting booth or such.  No parking cars or airplanes or what ever.  That is not our mission either. Other than recruiting air shows serve no purpose for CAP.   And I think personally that air shows have no purpose period.

Its called being a part of the community.  In many case providing extra hands for pancake breakfasts, fly-ins, or the local county fair is the only tangible way a unit can "give back" for all the resources airports and cities provide.

They are also "fun", and fun in a way which is directly relate-able to our core missions of service before self and aerospace education.

[a2capt]

Besides, CAP shouldn't be doing anything related to air shows either.  When I was Squadron and Group Commander I forbid participation in air shows other than a recruiting booth or such.  No parking cars or airplanes or what ever.  That is not our mission either. Other than recruiting air shows serve no purpose for CAP.   And I think personally that air shows have no purpose period.

"Contrarian and Curmudgeon at Large" ... and I'm sure glad as heck that you were not anywhere near us with that attitude.

Other than parking cars, which doesn't serve in our best interests, helping with air shows is just plane fun. The cadets eat it up, and we as a program and organization get exposure.

We get a fleet of ISRs and we send them out with cadets in pairs, when they are not the ones performing a particular duty, they can roam the displays and the whole thing works in rotations of an hour or two max so that everyone gets to work and play. 

Whats a blast is when you're the only ones out there and the B-17 wing goes over your head on it's way to the taxiway. That just kicks ass and makes getting up at 5AM and corralling a flight of cadets and getting a vehicle caravan together all the more worth it.

[JoeTomasone]

Whats a blast is when you're the only ones out there and the B-17 wing goes over your head on it's way to the taxiway. That just kicks ass and makes getting up at 5AM and corralling a flight of cadets and getting a vehicle caravan together all the more worth it.

The cadets who got to help marshall the Thunderbirds out of the hangar at the last air show soooo hated that detail.     

[RRLE]

Um, no - the sites where our frequencies are posted. Saying you can Google for them, and actually presenting sites with that information are two different things.

Try this.

[N Harmon]

Just curious, but what about this:

For liaison communications between CAP and a Ham radio group, designate two frequencies: A CAP frequency and a Ham radio frequency. The CAP communications station can receive the Amateur Radio frequency, but transmit on the CAP frequency. And likewise, the Ham station can receive the CAP frequency, but transmit on the Ham frequency.

Would this still violate the regulation?

[davidsinn]

Just curious, but what about this:

For liaison communications between CAP and a Ham radio group, designate two frequencies: A CAP frequency and a Ham radio frequency. The CAP communications station can receive the Amateur Radio frequency, but transmit on the CAP frequency. And likewise, the Ham station can receive the CAP frequency, but transmit on the Ham frequency.

Would this still violate the regulation?

Yeah. Giving out our freqs to an unauthorized person.

[Eclipse]

Um, no - the sites where our frequencies are posted. Saying you can Google for them, and actually presenting sites with that information are two different things.

Try this.

Yeah, thanks - I know how to use Google, too.

My point, perhaps made a bit obscurely, is that any CAP member who comes across a web site posting our frequencies should be actively working to notify NHQ and have that content removed.

In cases where it can be shown that posting is illegal something is illegal Google is very good about removing those page from their searches.

Also, though I'm not being naive about this, a quick check of the first 10 results from the link above provides one page with WB numbers (that have been in use and public for years and before FOUO), and then a lot of discussion of the transition with no detail posted.  So if you, or anyone else, can find a site with the new freqs posted, please cite.

[Eclipse]

Just curious, but what about this:

For liaison communications between CAP and a Ham radio group, designate two frequencies: A CAP frequency and a Ham radio frequency. The CAP communications station can receive the Amateur Radio frequency, but transmit on the CAP frequency. And likewise, the Ham station can receive the CAP frequency, but transmit on the Ham frequency.

Would this still violate the regulation?

Yeah. Giving out our freqs to an unauthorized person.

Since that use could be argued as official business, you could have the Ham operators, etc., sign an NDA on the frequencies, however CAP traffic is prohibited from being on HAM radios, so any messages for a CAP members regarding CAP business would be verboten, regardless.

[JoeTomasone]

Um, no - the sites where our frequencies are posted. Saying you can Google for them, and actually presenting sites with that information are two different things.

Try this.

Yeah, thanks - I know how to use Google, too.

My point, perhaps made a bit obscurely, is that any CAP member who comes across a web site posting our frequencies should be actively working to notify NHQ and have that content removed.

In cases where it can be shown that posting is illegal something is illegal Google is very good about removing those page from their searches.

The first ten results do NOT have the new frequencies; and yes, I do.

[JoeTomasone]

Just curious, but what about this:

For liaison communications between CAP and a Ham radio group, designate two frequencies: A CAP frequency and a Ham radio frequency. The CAP communications station can receive the Amateur Radio frequency, but transmit on the CAP frequency. And likewise, the Ham station can receive the CAP frequency, but transmit on the Ham frequency.

Would this still violate the regulation?

Yeah. Giving out our freqs to an unauthorized person.

It would also be a violation of FCC Part 97 for a ham to communicate with a USG station except to provide emergency communications.

[RiverAux]

My point, perhaps made a bit obscurely, is that any CAP member who comes across a web site posting our frequencies should be actively working to notify NHQ and have that content removed.

Under whose authority?  What LAW is violated by someone posting CAP frequencies? 

[JoeTomasone]

Just curious, but what about this:

For liaison communications between CAP and a Ham radio group, designate two frequencies: A CAP frequency and a Ham radio frequency. The CAP communications station can receive the Amateur Radio frequency, but transmit on the CAP frequency. And likewise, the Ham station can receive the CAP frequency, but transmit on the Ham frequency.

Would this still violate the regulation?

Yeah. Giving out our freqs to an unauthorized person.

Since that use could be argued as official business, you could have the Ham operators, etc., sign an NDA on the frequencies, however CAP traffic is prohibited from being on HAM radios, so any messages for a CAP members regarding CAP business would be verboten, regardless.

Except that you have no authority to release the frequencies in the first place.   If you think you do, run that by your WG/DC so you can be told NO officially.  Also I refer to to the CAP/CC Memorandum dated 20 Jan 2006 on "Protection of Radio Frequency Information".

One further point of order: CAP traffic CAN be passed on ham frequencies -- but only by hams (and CAP member hams who are NOT signed in to the mission):

c. Where amateur radio "third party" traffic is needed to support a CAP mission, CAP communication managers may seek the support of local amateur radio clubs and organizations. CAP members who are licensed amateur radio operators and who are not acting in any CAP capacity (e.g. not signed into a mission) are not prohibited from exercising their amateur privileges and supporting affiliated amateur organizations using privately owned amateur equipment.

[JoeTomasone]

Under whose authority?  What LAW is violated by someone posting CAP frequencies?

20 January 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR REGION AND WING COMMANDERS
FROM: CAP/CC
SUBJECT: Protection of Radio Frequency Information

1. It has come to our attention that the radio frequency assignments provided us by the USAF are considered sensitive information and require protection from unauthorized release. IAW AFI 33-118 Radio Frequency (RF) Spectrum Management, "The continued protection of this information is essential to national security because it pertains to communications security and reveals vulnerabilities and capabilities". In addition, 18 USC 793 carries penalties for unauthorized disclosure of defense-related information.

<snip>

[RiverAux]

Though not a lawyer, I woudn't worry about that law being applied in a case like this.  It appears that you're good to go so long as you don't have some nefarious purpose.  Elsewise GoogleEarth would have been shut down and thousands jailed years ago for distributing aerial photos of military installations. 

[JoeTomasone]

Though not a lawyer, I woudn't worry about that law being applied in a case like this.  It appears that you're good to go so long as you don't have some nefarious purpose.  Elsewise GoogleEarth would have been shut down and thousands jailed years ago for distributing aerial photos of military installations.

So the message here is "it's OK to violate the law as long as you think you won't be punished"?   

[Eclipse]

Though not a lawyer, I woudn't worry about that law being applied in a case like this.  It appears that you're good to go so long as you don't have some nefarious purpose.  Elsewise GoogleEarth would have been shut down and thousands jailed years ago for distributing aerial photos of military installations.

Few, if any military bases are "secret" in regards to their location, and if they are, they aren't visible from the sky.  Further, most Google earth and similar other photos are a year+ old before they are posted, so not much use beyond general terms.

I encourage you to walk up the gate and start taking photographs and see if you receive any..."reaction".

[JoeTomasone]

Few, if any military bases are "secret" in regards to their location, and if they are, they aren't visible from the sky.  Further, most Google earth and similar other photos are a year+ old before they are posted, so not much use beyond general terms.

Yup.   Google Earth's photos of the FOB that I am on in Iraq are from 2004.

[RiverAux]

Though not a lawyer, I woudn't worry about that law being applied in a case like this.  It appears that you're good to go so long as you don't have some nefarious purpose.  Elsewise GoogleEarth would have been shut down and thousands jailed years ago for distributing aerial photos of military installations.

So the message here is "it's OK to violate the law as long as you think you won't be punished"?

No, my reading of the code you cited is that the legaility of the action depends on the intent with which it was taken. 

[Eclipse]

No, my reading of the code you cited is that the legaility of the action depends on the intent with which it was taken.

Yes, by all means let's split Supreme-Court-level hairs on a regulation designed to protect us and the people we are trying to help... 

[RiverAux]

No, my reading of the code you cited is that the legaility of the action depends on the intent with which it was taken.

Yes, by all means let's split Supreme-Court-level hairs on a regulation designed to protect us and the people we are trying to help... 

The law is all about splitting hairs.  If one read the part of the law regarding photographs of military aircraft the same as some apparently want to apply it towards CAP radio frequencies, most of CAP would be thrown in jail for taking photos of AF jets at airshows. 

I'm not advocating making CAP radio freqs easy to find, but before someone starts making noise about getting such information suppressed from the internet, and not just CAP web sites, they might want to know what kind of legal force is available for such a campaign.

[RedFox24]

Ok I am glad I got the over react that I wanted to prove a point.  You guys are taking all of this way to seroius.  Eclipse, Joe and a2capt take a deep breath.........PLEASE.

Read the last sentence of my post.  Sarcasm font.........get it.

As for air shows, yes they are fun if you like that kind of stuff.  I don't.  I guess having to stand in the middle of a field 20 some years ago as a cadet burning up in a pickle suit parking cars and getting yelled at on why people couldn't park closer or if there was a spot that was not in the mud left a bad impression on me.  I hated air shows ever sense and I don't to to them, CAP or as a civilian.  And I didn't allow my units or people to participate in car parking or marshaling as a commander either. 

Now back to comms......we have regs and we must follow them.  And the regs do not allow for us as CAP to talk to ANYONE other than CAP on CAP radios.  And the regs are pretty clear that we cant talk on others radios when we are CAP.  We also don't work with served agencies in a comms capacity because we don't have any. 

And as some of you like to point out regularly, we don't need comms anyway because we have phones and email and text and other ways to talk to those we don't serve. 

[RADIOMAN015]

My point, perhaps made a bit obscurely, is that any CAP member who comes across a web site posting our frequencies should be actively working to notify NHQ and have that content removed.

In cases where it can be shown that posting is illegal something is illegal Google is very good about removing those page from their searches.

Also, though I'm not being naive about this, a quick check of the first 10 results from the link above provides one page with WB numbers (that have been in use and public for years and before FOUO), and then a lot of discussion of the transition with no detail posted.  So if you, or anyone else, can find a site with the new freqs posted, please cite.

There's at least two major (well known national) radio monitoring websites, that are posting current actual monitoring results about our network to include frequencies found, net schedules, and repeater locations.

There also was (and probably still is) some wings' websites that had current channel plans & communications operations plans (which included repeater sites, station callsigns locations, etc.) to the publically accessible side of the websites.

I think some radio monitoring hobbyists see CAP's new radio communications network as the "forbidden fruit" that needs to be found.  It's relatively easy for those dedicated radio monitoring hobbyists to search for new frequencies, especially repeater output frequencies.  (The simplex frequencies will be a bit more challenging )  Additionally some radio scanner equipment has a technical function called "close call capture", which depending upon effective rated power at the transmitter site (and relative noise level at the receiver site), allows instant display of frequency as well as analog access tones (ctcss/dcs) & Digital P25 CAC NAC (network access code), about a mile from the source, even with a portable receiver with a rubber duckie antenna in a moving vehicle!!!   

As far as removal of information by request.  The USAF already tried that with one nationwide hobby website via a "request".   However, apparently the website owner got legal advice that basically stated that the information could remain on the site.
RM

[JoeTomasone]

Ok I am glad I got the over react that I wanted to prove a point.  You guys are taking all of this way to seroius.  Eclipse, Joe and a2capt take a deep breath.........PLEASE.

To quote the inestimable Will Smith: "Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin'"..

I'm pretty serious on CAPTALK when it appears that someone may be posting misinformation, yes.    Sarcasm, as you obviously realize, does not translate too well on the Internet.

Now back to comms......we have regs and we must follow them.  And the regs do not allow for us as CAP to talk to ANYONE other than CAP on CAP radios.

But again, here you are wrong.   I could tell you why, but at this point I am compelled to suggest a thorough re-read of 100-1 because I am not convinced that you have a firm grasp of its contents.   

  And the regs are pretty clear that we cant talk on others radios when we are CAP.  We also don't work with served agencies in a comms capacity because we don't have any. 

Unless this is more masked sarcasm, refer to the above. 

[JoeTomasone]

Additionally some radio scanner equipment has a technical function called "close call capture"

Actually a LOT of it exists at this point.  And yes, it does all of the above quite well.   

Want one?  $100. 

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2501194&filterName=Brand&filterValue=Uniden%C3%82%C2%AE


The frequencies WILL get out there, no matter how CAP or USAF feels about the matter.  There's too many people who enjoy monitoring radio as a hobby and who have this very sort of equipment for it to remain secret too long.    After all, most units post their activities on public web sites along with the location; it's not terribly hard to figure out where the radios will be.     However, despite what I feel is a futile position, CAP and USAF want the frequencies protected, so protect them we must.

Chalk it up to one more thing required of us that just doesn't make sense.

[PHall]

Knowing how often most Wings update their websites the only frequency info posted are the old wideband frequencies.

[SarDragon]

Um, no - the sites where our frequencies are posted. Saying you can Google for them, and actually presenting sites with that information are two different things.

Try this.

For the most part, that info is bovine excrement, particularly the VHF freqs. I especially like this paragraph:

CAP and NTIA have just begun installing the new 26 MHz AM radio gear in CAP vans, so right now, there is very little activity on those channels, as well as the 419 MHz channels.

What a crock!

[JoeTomasone]

CAP and NTIA have just begun installing the new 26 MHz AM radio gear in CAP vans, so right now, there is very little activity on those channels, as well as the 419 MHz channels.

<giggle><snort>