Interoperability in large missions

[CommGeek]

Isn't this about thesame amont of money CAP has spent for all of its 64 iterations of eServices??

There "got" to be plenty-o-dough in the CAP kitty for all sorts of interop commo

Plenty of CAP money being piddled away elsewhere... 'bout time CAP get with the program of interop anyways for all the CAPers wanting thise DHS HLS missions

Whadddya think..  DHS, HLS, FEMA, and EM types are center there world around CAP missions??

CAP OUGHT to wrap its heads and arms around who is going to drive the missions...more ti the ES world than SAREX's!!

Heli you are right on the money... The problem is the leadership at Wing, Region, and National only know the 'CAP Way'  and only think they know how the real world operates....the first hurdle is to educate them.  (in my opinion that's the hardest thing to do).  After the 'education' i think they may be willing to listen to the Real world Comm guys! and do something about interop.

[Nick]

Your VOIP will work as long as you have back up power for the DSL modem and the computer.

Important point to note.  If you ever want something survivable, go with DSL over cable modem.  The repeaters that cable modems need aren't necessarily always backed up with emergency power.

[Fubar]

Is VOIP going to work in a large scale disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake?  Phones and broadband are toast when power is cut.

I believe the American Red Cross now uses VOIP for everything. They FedEx satellite kits from their warehouse to the main headquarters (mission base if you will) for the disaster. The ARC then uses it's own resources to deliver the kits to their forward operating headquarters. The comm guys get the dish pointed in the right direction and hook up something like 10 phones and 10 laptops to the link and they're off and running.

Operating in a disaster area requires bringing a lot of resources with you. Resources cost money and from what I'm told, we ain't got the money.

[PHall]

Your VOIP will work as long as you have back up power for the DSL modem and the computer.

Important point to note.  If you ever want something survivable, go with DSL over cable modem.  The repeaters that cable modems need aren't necessarily always backed up with emergency power.

Hunh?   Most CATV stuff (amplifiers and such) in the field has limited, if any battery back-up.

[wuzafuzz]

I think CommGeek's idea here is more VoIP just as a protocol to mix the voice traffic, not actually long-haul VoIP like Skype or other commercial solutions.  Take a laptop computer with a USB interface to the audio in/out/PTT on a handheld radio, do some software-based audio mixing, and you have a RoIP gateway.

Your right on the money!

It could be used as a nation wide system...as long as the network is up.  Link all the repeaters in the Wing??

I love linked repeaters and use them all the time in COWG (also use linked systems as a ham).  The linking is extremely useful and makes us far more effective than we might otherwise be.

We must use caution to ensure that any encrypted traffic stays encrypted as it passes through linked systems.  Systems that rely on the decrypted audio out may inadvertently repeat secure comms in the clear at other locations.   Not much of an issue, yet, but who knows what the future holds.

[Thom]

Your VOIP will work as long as you have back up power for the DSL modem and the computer.

Important point to note.  If you ever want something survivable, go with DSL over cable modem.  The repeaters that cable modems need aren't necessarily always backed up with emergency power.

Hunh?   Most CATV stuff (amplifiers and such) in the field has limited, if any battery back-up.

Yes, that was McLarty's point, though I believe his statement can be misinterpreted.  He said that, and I'm paraphrasing here: "One should choose DSL, rather than Cable Modem" due to the lack of supporting infrastructure to keep Cable Modems (and the whole CATV infrastructure) going during a major disaster.

In contrast, as PHall and others have noted, DSL uses the PSTN network which is 99% backed up by large battery banks at every CO, and generators to maintain those batteries at many locations.

The PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) is almost unbelievably durable compared to any of the more modern information/communication installations in the US.

FYI, for the Telecom/Datacom geeks in the house, and pertinent to this thread: The FCC has recently begun issuing requests for comment on a plan to migrate ALL of the existing PSTN network in the US from POTS to VoIP.  That would mean the elimination of the current switched backbone down to the CO level, with likely migration to a digital infrastructure and either offering FXS ports to customers still on old copper, or SIP trunks to newer customers for direct VoIP phone access.  Either way, it would mean the end of the astoundingly resilient PSTN/POTS network we have had for ~100 years in the US.

Thom

[RADIOMAN015]

Genrally I think that we have adequate radio coverage with our aircraft flying and reporting back via radio to mission base their status.  This can be further enhanced/supplemented by some "high bird" relay activity if required.

A potential serious problem though is air to ground over an emergency scene, where there's no CAP ground assets and the local fire & rescue squadrons are responding & immediate coordination is imperative (and the local F&R doesn't operate on the same radio frquency band as CAP and/or CAP aircraft don't have the appropriate working frequency installed in the radio system).

As far as interoperability goes, there are ways to be "creative" by CAP and maybe even those small town public safety agencies that don't have any money to buy expensive gear.

1.  CAP can transmit one way via our typical VHF AM transeiver in the aircraft and the local agency can monitor via a radio scanner on the appropriate frequency (122.9/123.1 mhz).  CAP aircraft could also carry a portable (or even install a radio scanner, similiar to what one state police agency does both in it's vehicles & helos), so the local agency could talk back to the CAP aircraft.  The challenge is for CAP to know what frequency to monitor for the response.

2.  CAP aircraft could carry the least expensive compliant VHF portable radio with a few of channels programmed in the radio.  The radio could be air dropped as a protected bundle to the ground forces.  Hopefully we would get the radio back, because non return would also result in logistics Report of Survey requirements.

3.  CAP aircraft could carry an inexpensive Family Radio Service (FRS) or Intrasquad (ISR) portable radio and air drop it to the responding forces.   An appropriate portable radio would also be carried in the aircraft. Limitations are:  FRS radios could get interfered with by others not related to the mission and current regulation prohibit the use of ISR radios while aircraft are in flight.

Also regarding #2 & #3, CAP doesn't allow CAP mission pilots to train to do small bundle air drops at this point, so without practice, the success of any bundle drop would be questionable, so that #1 may be the only alternative available.

I think overall it's a challenge for CAP to think creatively "out of the box", and sometimes simple less costly communications alternatives might work, with appropriate practice & qualification.
RM         

[NavLT]

the real problem is that we plan on interoperatbility on large missions but never practice it to see if it works.

The repeat statement of all we do on large scale missions is take photos and don't need to work together is because most agencies don't see any value in CAP doing anything else.  I have brought CAP folks trained into Plans and Ops at larger state and county practice exercises not in CAP uniform because when you remove that stereo type packaging they get to do lots of functions.  Put them in greens and its off to Air ops only......

V/R
Lt J

[FW]

Comm interoperability should not be a problem in any mission.  I never realized we still had the problem.   I know of a couple of wings already having MOU's with their respective EMAs.  I'm kind of surprised this isn't more widespread.  At the region and national level, there are CAP Liasons with FEMA.  Hasn't there been agreements yet for comm?   In the last few years we've had a number of very large missions.  Was there nothing positive, as far as "best practices" to come of them?  With the $200,000 or so we have left over to spend every year for new radios, money is the least of our worries.
just my $.02

[arajca]

With the $200K end of year money we spend on radios, we're buying radios to talk to ourselves, not to talk to other agencies.

I know of ONE unit in CO whose ground team has an airband radio to talk to aircraft. They bought it with unit funds. They also have two vhf liaison radios, also purchased with unit funds.

I can't get enough equipment to equip COWG to meet the ToA, let alone anything extra like liaison or airband radios. I've asked repeatedly.

[NavLT]

I know all about the MOUs, they all say we will play well together.  At Katrina and 9/11 and etc..... I found that the paper saying and actually doing it fail.  and the Post Mort on the event always says "we need to practice more to work out the bugs before the crisis" but we don't.

just my .02 or maybe .01 after taxes....

V/R
LT J.

[Eclipse]

I know of ONE unit in CO whose ground team has an airband radio to talk to aircraft. They bought it with unit funds. They also have two vhf liaison radios, also purchased with unit funds.

And what are they going to actually do with this extra weight?  We don't have a need to communicate on AV band, for starters.

[FW]

With the $200K end of year money we spend on radios, we're buying radios to talk to ourselves, not to talk to other agencies.

I can't get enough equipment to equip COWG to meet the ToA, let alone anything extra like liaison or airband radios. I've asked repeatedly.

This is a matter of want vs. need.  If the need is shown, the money is available, priorities can be changed.  However, for positive change to happen, there needs to be a plan with specific objectives and a final goal to be achieved.  I'm sure this is on someone's wish list right now.  Anyone have a "round to-it" to get?

[arajca]

I know of ONE unit in CO whose ground team has an airband radio to talk to aircraft. They bought it with unit funds. They also have two vhf liaison radios, also purchased with unit funds.

And what are they going to actually do with this extra weight?  We don't have a need to communicate on AV band, for starters.

Not for talking to ourselves, but working with other agencies or private aircraft.

[Eclipse]

I know of ONE unit in CO whose ground team has an airband radio to talk to aircraft. They bought it with unit funds. They also have two vhf liaison radios, also purchased with unit funds.

And what are they going to actually do with this extra weight?  We don't have a need to communicate on AV band, for starters.

Not for talking to ourselves, but working with other agencies or private aircraft.

That's my point - agency traffic should not be the AV band, and our need to speak to other private aircraft is essentially zero.

[cap235629]

I know of ONE unit in CO whose ground team has an airband radio to talk to aircraft. They bought it with unit funds. They also have two vhf liaison radios, also purchased with unit funds.

And what are they going to actually do with this extra weight?  We don't have a need to communicate on AV band, for starters.

Not for talking to ourselves, but working with other agencies or private aircraft.

That's my point - agency traffic should not be the AV band, and our need to speak to other private aircraft is essentially zero.

how about talking to MEDEVAC?

[Eclipse]

how about talking to MEDEVAC?

That would be done by the fire/EMS on scene, not us.  CAP is not directly calling in airlift, at least not in 90+% of situations where we would be involved.

[wuzafuzz]

I'm a GTM and I will gladly carry an airband portable.  My radio harness has two pouches, one for my CAP radio, the other for an ISR, liaison, or airband HT.  Doing so increases my chances of talking to more people.  (Handy for extra DF too.)  Does it happen often?  No.  But it's awesome to have it if you need it.  The weight penalty is tiny and preserves my "comm cred."   

[SKYKING607]

We have a pair of these products in use where I work.  One is in a mobile configuration and the other in a portable package.  The portable package links 4 portable (hand-helds) while the mobile rig links some UHF and VHF equipment.

http://www.ncsradio.com/commercial/c250.shtml

New Communications Solutions products are reasonably priced.  In our law enforcement environment, they've come in handy in MANY missions.

/mc

[ammotrucker]

[That's my point - agency traffic should not be the AV band, and our need to speak to other private aircraft is essentially zero.

That seems funny to me, as I was just at a training event Sponsered by the state in which the only way that most of the ground teams could talk to CAP aircraft was on the AV band VHF.  If we are put in the same position of talking to there aircraft for support AV VHF may be the only way.

Which we where, how else is there to do that.  Interoperablitity should not be a pipe dream of what we think we need, CAP National should have discussed this issue and there should be a plan implemented NOW.  If there is no plan in place, and they need suggestions then we need to set-up a interoperable task force to discuss it.