From VolunteerNow: http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays_features.cfm/afnorth_gives_cap_technology_boost?show=news&newsID=9791
QuoteIn an effort to make CAP's job easier and more efficient, on Wednesday AFNORTH officers visited the organization's National Headquarters at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., to present officials there with five Geospatial Information Interoperability Exploitation Portable go kits.
The GIIEPs, purchased from the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, feature self-contained communications equipment and other hardware that allows for real time and near-real time full-motion video, digital imagery and in-flight chat capability with federal, state and local emergency operations centers supporting emergency situations.
"These kits will be a highly beneficial addition to CAP's existing mission toolkit," said Maj. Anthony Beresford, Alabama Wing chief of staff. "The ability to transmit geo-referenced video imagery in-flight shortens response times, while situational awareness is greatly improved by automatically updating aircraft and ground teams on the Google Earth map at the command center."
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
Sounds like great stuff, however this has me concerned:
QuoteThe kits will be maintained by CAP National Headquarters and shipped to CAP wings as needed for missions.
"During hurricane season, the kits will be sent to wings along the coast," said Lt. Col. Chris Sabo, Air Force Auxiliary Plans and Programs chief. "During the spring, we'll send them to states that are prone to flooding. And if necessary, we'll send the kits out west during fire season."
If these are sitting in a closet at NHQ most of the time, how are CAP aircrews going to learn to use this equipment? Each Wing probably has dozens of people who should at least use it once a year for training.
Now, I'm sure that when they ship them to a state during those high risk times there will be some opportunity to get people trained up, but not enough to develop a widespread knowledge of it.
Of course, there is only so much that you can spread around 5 pieces of equipment and they may be so easy to use that very little training is required, but I foresee a lot of headscratching going on when they open the box at wing hq with an aircrew standing next to them that is briefed and ready to go.
I think an important point in this story is that the relationship between CAP and USAF is not as poor as some have thought. "Warring factions" usually don't buy one another toys.
Quote from: Volunteer Now
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
One minor problem:
Quote from: Title 47 Part 22.925 (Oct 1, 2006 revision)
"Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When an aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off."
Aircards are technically identical to cellular telephones.
But is it a "telephone" as defined in the law?
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 27, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Volunteer Now
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
One minor problem:
Quote from: Title 47 Part 22.925 (Oct 1, 2006 revision)
"Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When an aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off."
Aircards are technically identical to cellular telephones.
At the GLR ES conference last spring they were talking about this. The sprint card uses a little different protocol from the rest of the cards. CAP is testing them at the NTC level. The prohibition on cell phones in aircraft has jack to do with the aircraft and everything to do with the cell system not being able to handle a transmitter lighting up several hundred to thousands of towers at once.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 27, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Volunteer Now
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
One minor problem:
Quote from: Title 47 Part 22.925 (Oct 1, 2006 revision)
"Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When an aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off."
Aircards are technically identical to cellular telephones.
Ever hear of Government exceptions?
Hey I'm all for anything that keeps us relevant.
Is the video/imagery shot from the aft observer window?
Quote from: cap235629 on January 27, 2011, 11:40:01 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 27, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Volunteer Now
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
One minor problem:
Quote from: Title 47 Part 22.925 (Oct 1, 2006 revision)
"Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When an aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off."
Aircards are technically identical to cellular telephones.
Ever hear of Government exceptions?
<devils advocate>Would this government exception apply only when we are operating as an instrumentality of the federal government by being on an AFAM or would it still apply when we're on a C-mission for the state EMA?</devils advocate>
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 28, 2011, 01:57:52 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 27, 2011, 11:40:01 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 27, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Volunteer Now
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
One minor problem:
Quote from: Title 47 Part 22.925 (Oct 1, 2006 revision)
"Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When an aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off."
Aircards are technically identical to cellular telephones.
Ever hear of Government exceptions?
<devils advocate>Would this government exception apply only when we are operating as an instrumentality of the federal government by being on an AFAM or would it still apply when we're on a C-mission for the state EMA?</devils advocate>
wouldn't a State EMA by definition be GOVERNMENT?
Quote from: cap235629 on January 28, 2011, 03:29:53 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 28, 2011, 01:57:52 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 27, 2011, 11:40:01 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 27, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Volunteer Now
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
One minor problem:
Quote from: Title 47 Part 22.925 (Oct 1, 2006 revision)
"Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When an aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off."
Aircards are technically identical to cellular telephones.
Ever hear of Government exceptions?
<devils advocate>Would this government exception apply only when we are operating as an instrumentality of the federal government by being on an AFAM or would it still apply when we're on a C-mission for the state EMA?</devils advocate>
wouldn't a State EMA by definition be GOVERNMENT?
But we're not operating as an instrumentality of the state government, we are operating as CAP, Inc. when not on an AFAM.
I could just as easily substitute Red Cross for state EMA.
Sprint has a waiver. Public Safety have been using Sprint Aircards in aircraft for years.
GIIEP sounds good, but the resolution of the 'live' video is horrible. The old Slowscan TV images look better. its something like 240 X 320
The system was cobbled together by CAP members and sold to the Army a few years ago. It uses Google Earth, an open source Chat app called Open Fire, VLC Streaming Video server and a script that sends your GPS to a server and created a network link KML file, so you can see everyones position. IF the Sprint card gets reception you can chat, and send pics. if you have to use the Satphone you only get 9600 baud data! My iPhone can do the same, but better!
When if fist came out i saw one, and within a week I had built the same thing for only the cost of the license for the VLC Server! $50!
I demoed the 'Hacked' version to the Wing and Region, and I was simply ignored!
Its a HUGE waste of money, and most cell phones can do more than the $12k+ box can!
Quote from: davidsinn on January 27, 2011, 10:48:05 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 27, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Volunteer Now
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
One minor problem:
Quote from: Title 47 Part 22.925 (Oct 1, 2006 revision)
"Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When an aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off."
Aircards are technically identical to cellular telephones.
At the GLR ES conference last spring they were talking about this. The sprint card uses a little different protocol from the rest of the cards. CAP is testing them at the NTC level. The prohibition on cell phones in aircraft has jack to do with the aircraft and everything to do with the cell system not being able to handle a transmitter lighting up several hundred to thousands of towers at once.
In the old days with Analog cellular systems lighting up multiple sites was an issue. With the digital system its not an issue. It is smart enough to not light up multiple towers. NTC always has to over complicate things. The issue is cell towers and antennas are built with at least a 2 degree down tilt on the antenna. They are not made to cover the air. So if you fly directly over a site you lose your signal. Thats a major problem they are having with the system.
I
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 28, 2011, 04:37:28 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on January 27, 2011, 10:48:05 PM
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 27, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Volunteer Now
Each GIIEP consists of a laptop, handheld cameras and a cellular air card, which provides Wi-Fi to the aircrew. A kit fits into two small cases, is easily transportable and can be shipped across the country when a new CAP wing needs it. Since the kits require no aircraft modification, they can be used in any CAP aircraft.
One minor problem:
Quote from: Title 47 Part 22.925 (Oct 1, 2006 revision)
"Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When an aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off."
Aircards are technically identical to cellular telephones.
At the GLR ES conference last spring they were talking about this. The sprint card uses a little different protocol from the rest of the cards. CAP is testing them at the NTC level. The prohibition on cell phones in aircraft has jack to do with the aircraft and everything to do with the cell system not being able to handle a transmitter lighting up several hundred to thousands of towers at once.
In the old days with Analog cellular systems lighting up multiple sites was an issue. With the digital system its not an issue. It is smart enough to not light up multiple towers. NTC always has to over complicate things. The issue is cell towers and antennas are built with at least a 2 degree down tilt on the antenna. They are not made to cover the air. So if you fly directly over a site you lose your signal. Thats a major problem they are having with the system.
I
My understanding of the cell system is that your phone associates with a single tower and will re associate with a different tower as your phone moves away. No lighting up towers to kingdom come when you're only talking to one.
But what happens if you turn your phone on in the air, and it's searching for a tower?
Also, I thought tower spacing was designed so that a phone could only reach a small number (3 or 4 max) at one time. At altitude, the number of towers in range is much higher.
Educate me.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 28, 2011, 05:39:32 AM
But what happens if you turn your phone on in the air, and it's searching for a tower?
Also, I thought tower spacing was designed so that a phone could only reach a small number (3 or 4 max) at one time. At altitude, the number of towers in range is much higher.
Educate me.
I hadn't thought about that. I assumed that we were turning it on when we were on the ground and then launching. Never considered turning it on midflight.
SarJunkie?
Your handset is constantly scanning for towers, when it finds one it locks on. Then it continues to scan for a higher RSSI or signal strength from adjacent towers. There is a hand off procedure that is too complex to explain here. when it hands off the towers talk to each other and make the switch. your phone can hear multiple towers, but only one can be associates with one 'active' tower at a time.
Being airborne you do see more towers and hand off more frequently , but again its only going to lock onto one tower. The added network traffic for the quicker handoffs is minimal.
According to sprint, if everyone was 'allowed' to use cellular in the air it would be a problem. but currently only public safety is authorized, so the traffic for hand offs is limited , and non noticeable on the network load.
The cell system is optimized for line of sight and level-with operation. That said, the user is on a level plain with the towers.
The AMPS system, the original analog 3W handsets, the 'cancerphone', would work very well from the mid flight levels. Of course the carriers hated you, but in the early 90's if you did it over the west you had very little impact on the system because there were great distances of no towers at all.
With the advent of today's 3G, CDMA, and it's digital precursors, these antennas are optimized such that anything above reasonable level operation resulted in a much more degraded signal to the point of no signal at around 5,000 AGL. Of course out west where we have this big piles of dirt and rocks blocking things like RF, it means that using the cell system will invariably get used at altitude. You're on Palomar mountain, looking west. How many towers are you going to possibly light up? What about during the transit up/down the mountain? You probably shouldn't be on the phone in the first place, but lets consider reality.
Or when you cross the switchback and loose sight of that tower that might be at the top, and instead hit on a couple below.
Sprint and Verizon use CDMA, Sprint and Verizon have roaming agreements between each other. We had some discussion at one point about getting waivers to use the Verizon system under 1,200 AGL for a photo transmission system prior to the deployment or announcement of SDIS/ARCHER. Since CAP flying was typically 800-1000 AGL that would have worked.
All this, when our new expensive P25 radios are capable of simultaneous digital voice and data. :(
I'm suprised that there isn't a dedicated airborne mode built into at least some existing cellphones along with dedicated towers and or maybe dedicated antennas placed on existing towers for use by those in aircraft.
Any of you techies able to enlighten me if something like this exists or is planned?
Quote from: blackrain on January 28, 2011, 04:20:39 PM
I'm suprised that there isn't a dedicated airborne mode built into at least some existing cellphones along with dedicated towers and or maybe dedicated antennas placed on existing towers for use by those in aircraft.
Any of you techies able to enlighten me if something like this exists or is planned?
Honestly, the market just isn't there. By that I mean, the solutions you mention would be very adaptable to low or mid level flights, but would not be satisfactory for flights above, SWAG, FL030.
Care to guess where most commercial flights spend most of their time? Yep, above FL030.
GA and the other poor souls puttering around below that level just don't represent a large enough market to justify dedicated infrastructure from the mobile carrier's point of view.
(There are some dedicated systems used by Corporate aircraft and some other users, but not much of the airlines.)
The real path forward for the mobile carriers is to work with the major airlines to install Picocells as relay points inside the airliners. Having a local relay point lets them dial back the power on the phones in that plane (auto-transmit power adjustment...) so they don't cover half the towers in a state, while providing very reliable signals within the plane. The picocell relay point can then use any of a number of direct link technologies to 'backhaul' the aggregated traffic from all the phone users on the plane to the ground, and back. This is already in place with some of the fleet with some of the carriers. It remains to be seen how widely adopted this becomes.
FYI, they use a similar strategy for WiFi, just with a standard Wireless Access Point instead of a Picocell, but the aggregated backhaul to the ground and back is similar, though some are using satellite links, while others use direct-beam to ground stations.
Thom
Thanks
As you said the market has to be there first.
Didn't think about the range issue. In the high flight levels you are 5 to 6 miles minimum (then only if directly overhead) from any ground stations even though long range line of site is readily available.
Still would be nice to have a way to call ATC in the event of comms failure even if not be able to call anyone else.
Quote from: N Harmon on January 28, 2011, 03:45:57 PM
All this, when our new expensive P25 radios are capable of simultaneous digital voice and data. :(
HAHAHAHAHAHA...
Quote from: davidsinn on January 27, 2011, 10:48:05 PMThe prohibition on cell phones in aircraft has jack to do with the aircraft and everything to do with the cell system not being able to handle a transmitter lighting up several hundred to thousands of towers at once.
Except that current cellphones don't work that way anymore (key word:
anymore). The tower with the strongest signal is the one that the cellphone handshakes with. Towers have an identifier that the
phone selects these days. It's more efficient, and conserves the phone's battery. That's why a cell phone smaller than a deck of cards and with far less power than older cells can have conversations for days, even a week, without needing constant recharging.
Cellphones now have more in common with a computer selecting a specific router than the old systems that would ping everything around it, and then select which one to use.
If this aircard is basically trying to get in touch with a cell tower, just how is this supposed to work in a disaster area where either the cell system is jammed with people calling each other or is down because of power loss or damage from the disaster itself?
^ This.
Also, what about training, spare pool, and ongoing maintenance?
Quote from: RiverAux on January 28, 2011, 08:11:31 PM
If this aircard is basically trying to get in touch with a cell tower, just how is this supposed to work in a disaster area where either the cell system is jammed with people calling each other or is down because of power loss or damage from the disaster itself?
Actually, speaking from the heart of Hurricane country, the mobile telephone networks are just about the least of our problems after a storm. The carriers have really done a commendable job (as well they should with all that money they are raking in...) of hardening their towers, their fiber backhaul links, and interconnect points. Really our experience after Katrina and since then has been that the cell towers are overloaded for about 2-6 hours after a storm passes, then the towers go dark somewhere between 24 and 48 hours after the storm, until about 24 hours later. That gap is the tower site generators running out of fuel and waiting for either utility power to return or the carrier to get a fuel truck to the site. The carriers also now have a bunch of their 'mobile tower' rigs that they can drive into an area, setup and start, all within a very short time.
Other than those small gaps, which are easy enough to work around if you know to plan in advance, the cellular networks are surprisingly reliable after a major storm down here.
All that said, we also need to maintain satellite (or P25...) capabilities for those times when the cellular networks are unavailable, for whatever reason. But the limited speed and high cost of those connections definitely makes them a fallback option, with the cellular data connection being the better first choice.
Also, the cellular data system can be used for all our other ADIS/SDIS missions which happen during the 99.93% of the year when there isn't a hurricane and the cellular networks are not down.
Thom
Quote from: Thom on January 28, 2011, 10:33:54 PM
The carriers also now have a bunch of their 'mobile tower' rigs that they can drive into an area, setup and start, all within a very short time.
They use those at the state fair here every year to keep the infrastructure near the area from falling apart. I also saw a Verizon mobile tower deployed in front of AT&T offices once. I got a pretty big kick out of that every time I drove to a meeting until it disappeared one day.
All in all, cell providers have done a lot to speed disaster recovery, but we still need to at least have something on the shelf we can use when something really bad happens.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 28, 2011, 08:11:31 PM
If this aircard is basically trying to get in touch with a cell tower, just how is this supposed to work in a disaster area where either the cell system is jammed with people calling each other or is down because of power loss or damage from the disaster itself?
Right after Katrina passed through Mississippi, cell phone service was still available. Many people called within an hour of the storm passing. A guy there was talking to his mother, and she three way called my Dad's home phone so I could leave a message.
As someone pointed out above, a generator could run out of fuel. Other than that, cell service infrastructure was relatively undamaged. Many people still had home phone service
Supposedly, someone there had a satellite phone, and was letting people make calls with it. I never ran into him, but I could see how it could be handy. I would have hated to see his bill, though.
CAP IC's and other as designated have an access code for cell dialing that gives them priority access to towers.
A localized issue like Katrina/rita is one thing. A national issue like 9/11 is another. As was pointed out 99% of the time cell service is a fine option. But it's that 1% that can be really important in a time of need.
Quote from: cap235629 on January 29, 2011, 02:31:56 AM
CAP IC's and other as designated have an access code for cell dialing that gives them priority access to towers.
This is not a free system, or something we can just 'turn on' during a disaster. its costs $10 a month per phone, then several cents per min. at the curent time there are no CAP member son the system. National wont ppay for it. It has to be in place well before a disaster hits.
Florida Wing did a test with GIIEP a while back. It didnt work, the system kept locking up when it lost cell signal. It is FAR from reliable. Yes the cell companies are getting better , but it still wont and not reliable in a disaster. and CAP isnt far enough up on the pecking order to get said 'priority service' we are NOT first responders!
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 29, 2011, 11:24:14 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 29, 2011, 02:31:56 AM
CAP IC's and other as designated have an access code for cell dialing that gives them priority access to towers.
This is not a free system, or something we can just 'turn on' during a disaster. its costs $10 a month per phone, then several cents per min. at the curent time there are no CAP member son the system. National wont ppay for it. It has to be in place well before a disaster hits.
And I thought I had just not been issued my secret code yet ;D
Quote from: cap235629 on January 29, 2011, 02:31:56 AM
CAP IC's and other as designated have an access code for cell dialing that gives them priority access to towers.
Cite?
No IC I have spoken to has been given one.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 30, 2011, 03:00:07 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 29, 2011, 02:31:56 AM
CAP IC's and other as designated have an access code for cell dialing that gives them priority access to towers.
Cite?
No IC I have spoken to has been given one.
I think they are referring to GETS: http://gets.ncs.gov/
Only the 'super secret pukes' at NTC have activated accounts...
National will never give all IC's this capability. Its like an open credit card subject to miss use. it does cost per min and month per phone.
In order for the system to work you have to have telephone infrastructure in place. its not a guarantee, and it wont 'Bump' someone off the network so you can make a call.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 30, 2011, 04:34:52 PM
Only the 'super secret pukes' at NTC have activated accounts...
Not true. I have an activated GETS account, and am not affiliated in any way with the NTC.
Folks - let me provide a bit of info, as I'm the guy who was doing the work on using the air cards for National.
First of all, because they use commercially licensed frequencies (cell), they fall under the FCC rules. The FCC rules for the old analog frequency space (below 1 GHz) still prohibit use from airplanes, and I have confirmed this with the FCC themselves. Doesn't matter if we're CAP or not, as long as there isn't an emergency. If there is an emergency, you can use any frequency if you have to.
AT&T, Verizon, etc. used to have analog cellular, and with the shutdown of analog service, they've reused the frequencies for digital cell. The modulation doesn't matter to the FCC - but the frequency space does, and the old space is still covered under the "no airborne use restriction" clause. Again, I confirmed this myself with the FCC. Two or three year old phones may well be legal - if they cannot use frequencies below 1 GHz for communications, they're legal. Unfortunately, everything made in the past 3-4 years can, so you can't really buy something air legal any more.
The reason that Sprint was able to allow airborne use of their data cards is because they didn't have analog space there that is used by current phones. All of their < 1 GHz stuff was for Nextel, which uses an entirely different modulation and isn't supported by the wireless data card vendors.
Now, I know that there are a lot of public service agencies out there that are using air cards in fixed wing airplanes that aren't Sprint. I also know from friends that it is possible to use cell phones for data service (tethering, or the Android hot spot) very successfully on some of the carriers at all sorts of altitudes. Unfortunately, because of the FCC frequency rules, doing so in the absence of an actual emergency (i.e., during a SAREX isn't an emergency, HLS isn't an emergency in most cases, etc.) would be illegal, and this is why CAP doesn't allow it now. This has been communicated to some Wings that have asked, but wider dissemination of this is something that I've asked for so we don't have unfortunate surprises.
Is it possible to use other carriers? Absolutely. If we had the cooperation of the carrier's engineering department, they could create a service book for our accounts that would tell the phone not to use the < 1 GHz frequencies. I had zero luck getting through the call centers for AT&T, TMobile, and Verizon - if you have contacts to their engineering department and could get cooperation, please PM me.
I also talked to the companies that make the cards, which are resold by the carriers. None of them provided a way for someone other than the carrier to restrict output on frequencies below 1 GHz. I explained why we wanted that capability, and was told that they might add it in the future, but the carriers really called the shots. With 550 airplanes, even if we bought a system for each airplane, we aren't large enough to be anything more than a rounding error in terms of importance to the carriers.
Unfortunately, our testing of Sprint while in the air showed that it wasn't a great solution. Like most cell carriers, they angle their antennas down towards the ground where their customers are. This produces a very weak airborne signal, and it wasn't reliable above about 1000 AGL. We continue to look for ways to make it work better, but haven't found a decent solution to the problem yet.
We know that the hams can do it beautifully with DSTAR, but that doesn't work for CAP for all the reasons that have been beaten to death previously.
Or as someone mentioned previously, we could put P25 to work...
P25 only supports 9600 baud.... too slow for anything useful other than text messaging.
"We know that the hams can do it beautifully with DSTAR, but that doesn't work for CAP for all the reasons that have been beaten to death previously."
What if we put a Amateur (Non-CAP) member in he bird to operate thier DSTAR gear?
Last week we completed a DSTAR 1296 test at 2000 feet (in a Non CAP bird!, as part of my real job.) We had over 100 mile range from the repeater site with solid 100k data.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 02:34:08 AM
P25 only supports 9600 baud.... too slow for anything useful other than text messaging.
Just to show the math, a 5 MB photo would take 1 hour, 12 minutes and 48 seconds to transmit over 9600 baud. Unless you had a
really important picture, it would be faster to simply land at the nearest airport, pull out a laptop and upload the photos into WIMRS.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 02:37:42 AM
"We know that the hams can do it beautifully with DSTAR, but that doesn't work for CAP for all the reasons that have been beaten to death previously."
What if we put a Amateur (Non-CAP) member in he bird to operate thier DSTAR gear?
Last week we completed a DSTAR 1296 test at 2000 feet (in a Non CAP bird!, as part of my real job.) We had over 100 mile range from the repeater site with solid 100k data.
It's not who owns the plane that's the problem, it's the conducting of CAP business over amateur band that's the issue. I think because of our aux status (federal organization) we are prohibited legally from using the amateur band - but that's just something I recall, I can't cite it.
Also, I didn't know P25 operated at 9600 baud (though I guess someone may have mentioned it earlier). Good to know.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 31, 2011, 02:51:47 AM
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 02:37:42 AM
"We know that the hams can do it beautifully with DSTAR, but that doesn't work for CAP for all the reasons that have been beaten to death previously."
What if we put a Amateur (Non-CAP) member in he bird to operate thier DSTAR gear?
Last week we completed a DSTAR 1296 test at 2000 feet (in a Non CAP bird!, as part of my real job.) We had over 100 mile range from the repeater site with solid 100k data.
It's not who owns the plane that's the problem, it's the conducting of CAP business over amateur band that's the issue. I think because of our aux status (federal organization) we are prohibited legally from using the amateur band - but that's just something I recall, I can't cite it.
Also, I didn't know P25 operated at 9600 baud (though I guess someone may have mentioned it earlier). Good to know.
This may be a stupid question but why can't we use the HAM technology but on our frequencies?
you need 15 MHZ of bandwidth to use the DSTAR Digital data modulation. We dont have 15 mhz lol
But it wouldnt be CAP business at that point. and in a disaster all the rules are out the window! The Amateur operator would be conducting Amateur business, we just provide an airframe.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 03:14:47 AM
you need 15 MHZ of bandwidth to use the DSTAR Digital data modulation. We dont have 15 mhz lol
But it wouldnt be CAP business at that point. and in a disaster all the rules are out the window! The Amateur operator would be conducting Amateur business, we just provide an airframe.
If CAP is asked to transmit photos from the air and we bring along a HAM to send them that's CAP business.
And what gave you the idea that in a disaster all the rules are out the window?? That's usually when the rules are most important because frequencies become congested and there's a lot of confusion and mayhem. Traffic which would typically be preceded by mayday is allowed to bend the rules (like transmitting on any available freq.), but that doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want during a disaster.
But what is CAP's tasking is to just fly the Amateur operator, and he takes the pics and sends them? At that point we are just a taxi...
In an emergency you do what you have to do to get the traffic to the recipient, If that involved TXing on another freq or system you do it.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 03:23:11 AM
In an emergency you do what you have to do to get the traffic to the recipient, If that involved TXing on another freq or system you do it.
Correct.
A natural disaster doesn't qualify as such an emergency. An emergency is defined as a situation with imminent threat to life or property. That means you're rapidly approaching the ground at a high rate of speed, drowning in a river, or other similar immediate problem.
Ok, but again, Why cant an amateur Radio operator , take pics, and TX them via their system on board our birds?
Not CAP business, its Amateur Radio business. we just provide the aircraft.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 03:35:46 AM
Ok, but again, Why cant an amateur Radio operator , take pics, and TX them via their system on board our birds?
Not CAP business, its Amateur Radio business. we just provide the aircraft.
Quote from: CAPR 60-12-3. Passenger Requirements. Passengers and crew members must be current CAP members, CAP employees, AFROTC/AFJROTC cadets (AFROTC/AFJROTC flight orientation program), International Air Cadet Exchange (IACE) cadets and escorts, Emergency Services (ES) or Rescue workers engaged in a Supervised Mission (if approved by the mission approval authority), FAA designated pilot examiners during flight checks, or U.S. government employees/military conducting official duties in conjunction with CAP. Other individuals require advance approval by the CAP NOC, NHQ CAP/DO, or CAP-USAF (5 working days notice requested for approvals).
Well, if they qualify as an ES worker and you have approval from whoever the "mission approval authority" is (presumably NOC) then you could probably do it.
Correct, So you call the NOC, fill out the paperwork, and problem solved! We now can send real time video, and pics. And not rely on Cellular.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 03:53:06 AM
Correct, So you call the NOC, fill out the paperwork, and problem solved! We now can send real time video, and pics. And not rely on Cellular.
Of course the paperwork is filled out with the 5 day advance notice required by CAPR 60-1, section 2-3. As long as your emergencies are appropriately scheduled in advance, you're good to go!
Bottom line is the head comm guy does not want amateur radio used to fulfill CAP missions. Agree or disagree, he's the guy in charge.
Quote from: Fubar on January 31, 2011, 02:44:24 AM
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 02:34:08 AM
P25 only supports 9600 baud.... too slow for anything useful other than text messaging.
Just to show the math, a 5 MB photo would take 1 hour, 12 minutes and 48 seconds to transmit over 9600 baud. Unless you had a really important picture, it would be faster to simply land at the nearest airport, pull out a laptop and upload the photos into WIMRS.
You can send lower res. images unless the client wants a higher res. image. Even then it doesn't take but a few minutes - nowhere near the time you suggest. We've used SSTV to transfer images for years (doesn't everybody?).
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/11/10/47962-situation-awareness-improves-with-new-system/ (http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/11/10/47962-situation-awareness-improves-with-new-system/)
Here is an article from the Redstone Arsenal newspaper, on page 16 regarding GIIEP, much the same as the above article.
https://ams8.redstone.army.mil/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PAO_PAGE_GROUP/PAO_COMMAND_PUBLICATIONS_PAGE/PAO_COMMAND_PUBS_CENTER_PORTLET/NOVEMBER%2017%2C%202010.PDF (https://ams8.redstone.army.mil/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PAO_PAGE_GROUP/PAO_COMMAND_PUBLICATIONS_PAGE/PAO_COMMAND_PUBS_CENTER_PORTLET/NOVEMBER%2017%2C%202010.PDF)
Cheers,
SSTV does not work on Narrowband
The Gateway Squadron in Missouri has a powerpoint presentation available from the Army on this system. I would suggest someone in the know interpret this thing into English for the common Man. :o
Download the file (it is in pptx format - Office 2007). I could not get the viewer to work.
http://sites.google.com/site/capgatewaysquadron/professional-development-library (http://sites.google.com/site/capgatewaysquadron/professional-development-library)
Here is a hi-res image of the kit from the 1AF photo archive:
http://www.1af.acc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/110126-F-8080P-001.JPG (http://www.1af.acc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/110126-F-8080P-001.JPG)
Cheers,
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 30, 2011, 03:00:07 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 29, 2011, 02:31:56 AM
CAP IC's and other as designated have an access code for cell dialing that gives them priority access to towers.
Cite?
No IC I have spoken to has been given one.
I have one.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 06:10:33 PM
SSTV does not work on Narrowband
I'm a self proclaimed idiot when it comes to radios (ie. just tell me what frequency to turn it to and which button to push to talk). So, I don't know narrowband, wideband, etc. All I do know is that SSTV works on our dedicated VHF CAP frequencies just fine.
Narrow band frequencies provide a narrower "tube" though which the data must pass. To send the same amount of information will require more time over a narrower channel. Most CAP people are probably not into SSTV, since its a little outdated, but it is roughly comparable to sending a FAX. Given enough time, you can send any resolution and size photo you want.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on January 31, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Narrow band frequencies provide a narrower "tube" though which the data must pass. To send the same amount of information will require more time over a narrower channel. Most CAP people are probably not into SSTV, since its a little outdated, but it is roughly comparable to sending a FAX. Given enough time, you can send any resolution and size photo you want.
Major Lord
Agree that it is antiquated. However, what it does offer is the ability to transmit and receive images over a frequency when other technology may not be available (ie cell service, internet, etc.). As such, it's a technology that can be beneficial in a real emergency, even if it's not particularly glamorous.
Why dosent cAP invest in a few BGAN or VSAT satellite internet systems. They dont work from the air, but they do when you land at the airport. Everyone else and their brother have them....
Quote from: A.Member on January 31, 2011, 10:13:40 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on January 31, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Narrow band frequencies provide a narrower "tube" though which the data must pass. To send the same amount of information will require more time over a narrower channel. Most CAP people are probably not into SSTV, since its a little outdated, but it is roughly comparable to sending a FAX. Given enough time, you can send any resolution and size photo you want.
Major Lord
Agree that it is antiquated. However, what it does offer is the ability to transmit and receive images over a frequency when other technology may not be available (ie cell service, internet, etc.). As such, it's a technology that can be beneficial in a real emergency, even if it's not particularly glamorous.
Preaching to the choir! I love SSTV, and it is cheap and easily adaptable to our current gear. There is a company selling a combined camera and SSTV camera about 2 inches square that could literally be built into a Com Microphone.
Major Lord
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 10:36:39 PM
Why dosent cAP invest in a few BGAN or VSAT satellite internet systems. They dont work from the air, but they do when you land at the airport. Everyone else and their brother have them....
With modern data sizes it would literally be faster and cheaper to fly and hand deliver a thumb drive with pictures to nearly anywhere in the country.
Not really. 200 bucks a month will get you 1Mb upload by 2Mb Download Via satellite.
What if you dont have internet, and need 'real time' photos?
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 11:36:39 PM
Not really. 200 bucks a month will get you 1Mb upload by 2Mb Download Via satellite.
What if you dont have internet, and need 'real time' photos?
$2400/yr for one unit, which in many places would sit on the shelf at wing HQ?
Whatever happened to SDIS?
Why would it sit on the shelf? how many times have you been to an activity that dosent have sufficient internet? SAREX's, Cadet Special Acts, Encampments..... The usage is endless. and of course REDCAPS and DR Missions.
SDIS is dead, Globalstar craped the bed, and dosen't have enough birds in the sky for any decent coverage.
Quote from: SARJunkie on January 31, 2011, 11:52:45 PM
Why would it sit on the shelf? how many times have you been to an activity that dosent have sufficient internet? SAREX's, Cadet Special Acts, Encampments..... The usage is endless. and of course REDCAPS and DR Missions.
In short? GOBs & hoarders. I'm not aware of those types in my area/wing but I am confident they're out there.
GOB's?
Horders? im not following?
The hoarders who like 'trophies' to stay with them, and make it too hard to get at by establishing hoops and hurdles to get to it.
..and the GOBs who apply that logic above only to people outside their "network".
Easy...FIRE THEM!
Tell them to fly a kite!
Quote from: A.Member on January 31, 2011, 10:13:40 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on January 31, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Narrow band frequencies provide a narrower "tube" though which the data must pass. To send the same amount of information will require more time over a narrower channel. Most CAP people are probably not into SSTV, since its a little outdated, but it is roughly comparable to sending a FAX. Given enough time, you can send any resolution and size photo you want.
Major Lord
Agree that it is antiquated. However, what it does offer is the ability to transmit and receive images over a frequency when other technology may not be available (ie cell service, internet, etc.). As such, it's a technology that can be beneficial in a real emergency, even if it's not particularly glamorous.
It's also not geographically diverse; i.e. the aircraft will have to fly close enough to the intended receiver and loiter in order to transmit the data. If you're gonna do that, why not fly somewhere that cell service IS available, land, and transmit more in a shorter period of time while not burning fuel?
Perhaps attach the GIIEPS to the kite? Determine whether or not there is enough weight allowance to attach ARCHER and SDIS to it, also.
Im sure they would all lmake a great wheel chock!
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 01, 2011, 01:14:16 AM
Quote from: A.Member on January 31, 2011, 10:13:40 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on January 31, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Narrow band frequencies provide a narrower "tube" though which the data must pass. To send the same amount of information will require more time over a narrower channel. Most CAP people are probably not into SSTV, since its a little outdated, but it is roughly comparable to sending a FAX. Given enough time, you can send any resolution and size photo you want.
Major Lord
Agree that it is antiquated. However, what it does offer is the ability to transmit and receive images over a frequency when other technology may not be available (ie cell service, internet, etc.). As such, it's a technology that can be beneficial in a real emergency, even if it's not particularly glamorous.
It's also not geographically diverse; i.e. the aircraft will have to fly close enough to the intended receiver and loiter in order to transmit the data. If you're gonna do that, why not fly somewhere that cell service IS available, land, and transmit more in a shorter period of time while not burning fuel?
That would take much longer. You make it sound as if transmission takes hours. It doesn't - not even close. We're talking minutes.
The longest transmission of a single photo I've seen is about 3 min. or so and that was a higher resolution photo. In most cases, a quick, lower resolution image (quicker transmit time) is good enough to determine whether additional info is needed. If it is, a higher res. image can be sent (note: the photo does not need to be retaken). Resolution was good enough for all DR assessments I've seen (real world). High birds can be used as repeaters. Again, this is not cutting edge technology but cutting edge is not always needed. Fact is that it works, plain and simple, and that's what it's really about. A low cost, practical solution that meets the demand - isn't that really CAP?!
So you take the pic and send it via slowscan. you still have to have a ground receive station within LOS of the bird. How does the ground station get the image to the client? they still need internet access...
Quote from: SARJunkie on February 01, 2011, 03:41:18 AM
So you take the pic and send it via slowscan. you still have to have a ground receive station within LOS of the bird. How does the ground station get the image to the client? they still need internet access...
Ground station only has to be LOS from the final send. Again, high birds can serve as repeaters to extend range. As a result, the ground station can be a looong way from the target/originator.
In the real world cases I've worked, CAP had a comm center co-located in or adjacent to a command center with the client (other local, state, and federal agencies). There was no need to send the image elsewhere. Decision makers were there, on-site and could review the images immediately. No internet required.
Quote from: A.Member on February 01, 2011, 03:20:16 AM
The longest transmission of a single photo I've seen is about 3 min. or so and that was a higher resolution photo. In most cases, a quick, lower resolution image (quicker transmit time) is good enough to determine whether additional info is needed. If it is, a higher res. image can be sent (note: the photo does not need to be retaken). Resolution was good enough for all DR assessments I've seen (real world). High birds can be used as repeaters. Again, this is not cutting edge technology but cutting edge is not always needed. Fact is that it works, plain and simple, and that's what it's really about. A low cost, practical solution that meets the demand - isn't that really CAP?!
For Deepwater Horizon, hundreds of pictures of the coastline PER SORTIE were taken. For FLWGs RECON program, it could be dozens. Now, if all you have is one picture to transmit, SSTV might work for you - but if we're talking about lots of images, that's not going to cut it - and lets not forget that SSTV requires an active operator on the other side to receive, unlike one of the several methods you could transfer files over the internet.
Please elaborate on what set of circumstances a highbird would reasonably extend the comms range of another aircraft in which it would not be more expeditious to have the aircraft simply fly to the recipient and transmit. I can't come up with any.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 01, 2011, 04:16:55 AM
For Deepwater Horizon, hundreds of pictures of the coastline PER SORTIE were taken. For FLWGs RECON program, it could be dozens. Now, if all you have is one picture to transmit, SSTV might work for you - but if we're talking about lots of images, that's not going to cut it - and lets not forget that SSTV requires an active operator on the other side to receive, unlike one of the several methods you could transfer files over the internet.
So, think about those scenarios for a minute. Are the resources on the receiving side, ie the client, truly able to evaluate/analyze hundreds of pictures per sortie near real time even if you could get them there? I highly doubt it. So, in that case, I agree with you. It's best to simply RTB and bring the card with you. Again, use the right solution for the situation.
As for the operator, you already have people in comms anyway. That said, it doesn't require an "active operator" any more so than any other solution with file transfer to the internet (as a matter of fact, the way ours is set up, all transmitted images are picked up by a repeater and automatically loaded to secure webpage). Regardless, in either case, somebody on the receiving end will want to confirm the images were received.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on February 01, 2011, 04:16:55 AM
Please elaborate on what set of circumstances a highbird would reasonably extend the comms range of another aircraft in which it would not be more expeditious to have the aircraft simply fly to the recipient and transmit. I can't come up with any.
I can come up with many. The DR situations I've been involved with (ex. flooding, high winds) had very specific sorties with multiple targets. I had photos (typically 4) taken of a target, then transmitted them while in route to the next target. These target could 60 miles apart. Do you honestly think a 172 can RTB, land, hand off images, take off again, and move to a new target quicker than the image transfer? You can't really believe that.
Yeah, I can't see needing real time imagery for 99% of the missions we fly. So having a few kits like this would be a good idea. But I think it would be better if we assigned them to specialized teams and then moved the teams around with the equipment. That way it doesn't arrive on someone's doorstep who has never used it before.
If the need for airborne imagery is purely strategic, the technique of dropping off an SD card or memory module is the probably the best way to provide high res images. I think its important to distinguish between the relatively low grade of imagery involved in video, compared to the generally superior still image from film or high res digital imagery. If we have a need for video, its most likely to be purely tactical (i.e. giving Ground teams real-time data concerned with team movement and hazards...like zombies) Sending high resolution video in real time is a tall and pricey order!
Major Lord
As Major Lord pointed out. Real time video/imagery is pricey but I would rather use funding for something like the POP300 with fewer systems. I believe the POP300 is essentially what is on the Shadow UAV. Not as heavy/cheaper? as the Surrogate Predator Package but better IMHO for a C-182.
We can dream.
Tried to insert image but that didn't work. I guess I should call an expert. My kids should be able to help ;D
Quote from: Major Lord on February 01, 2011, 03:52:14 PM
If the need for airborne imagery is purely strategic, the technique of dropping off an SD card or memory module is the probably the best way to provide high res images. I think its important to distinguish between the relatively low grade of imagery involved in video, compared to the generally superior still image from film or high res digital imagery. If we have a need for video, its most likely to be purely tactical (i.e. giving Ground teams real-time data concerned with team movement and hazards...like zombies) Sending high resolution video in real time is a tall and pricey order!
Major Lord
Agreed. I haven't seen a real business justification for true real time video. Is it cool technology? Sure. Is it truly required? Not that I've seen. CAP needs to keep in mind it's value proposition.
The actual promise of this system, is the ability to re-task the bird in flight based upon the imagery being projected to the ICP. Obviously, you are not going to do so for an entire flight. But if you are tasked to perform a damage assessment flight, you might finds several points along your route that might warrant, a closer look and immediate transmission to the ICP.
Quote from: Major Lord on February 01, 2011, 03:52:14 PM
If the need for airborne imagery is purely strategic, the technique of dropping off an SD card or memory module is the probably the best way to provide high res images. I think its important to distinguish between the relatively low grade of imagery involved in video, compared to the generally superior still image from film or high res digital imagery. If we have a need for video, its most likely to be purely tactical (i.e. giving Ground teams real-time data concerned with team movement and hazards...like zombies) Sending high resolution video in real time is a tall and pricey order!
Major Lord
I was under the impression that zombies were invisible to most modern video equipment.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 01, 2011, 06:27:51 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on February 01, 2011, 03:52:14 PM
If the need for airborne imagery is purely strategic, the technique of dropping off an SD card or memory module is the probably the best way to provide high res images. I think its important to distinguish between the relatively low grade of imagery involved in video, compared to the generally superior still image from film or high res digital imagery. If we have a need for video, its most likely to be purely tactical (i.e. giving Ground teams real-time data concerned with team movement and hazards...like zombies) Sending high resolution video in real time is a tall and pricey order!
Major Lord
I was under the impression that zombies were invisible to most modern video equipment.
That's only for IR cameras...that or you're confusing them with vampires. ;)
Having been a "real-time television" customer in a disaster situation as a Guard task force commander (using a local news chopper that graciously allowed us access to their feed and some limited taskings by me), I found it invaluable to have real-time images so I could say things like "OK, now give me some images about a half mile north, that's it, perfect." Or, "wait a second, could you zoom in on the freeway underpass? Does that look passable to you?"
I needed to know the current extent of flooding at critical facilities to station my forces appropriately. Having them take a few snaps, and then having to land and upload images before I could have useful information would not have been effective.
I remember desperately wishing that CAP had this capability.
Sometimes we don't get to tell the customer what they want or need. If they think they need SSTV, they probably do.
Ned Lee
Retired Guard Guy
Short range, real time air to ground video is easy, inexpensive, and can be accomplished though off-the-shelf, license free technology. I agree that it would be ideal in a tactical environment ( Zombies do show up on Video-just watch C-span for proof) Essentially, you mate a camcorder to a "Part 90" video transmitter and you have an eye-in-the sky with a ground to air range of not more than about ten miles. Hand-held video receivers are available off-the shelf. It would not have resolution much better than your home television, but the Scanner or Observer could point and zoom as directed or requested by ground teams. I would love to work on that project if CAP had the minimal funding to make it happen.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on February 01, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Short range, real time air to ground video is easy, inexpensive, and can be accomplished though off-the-shelf, license free technology. I agree that it would be ideal in a tactical environment ( Zombies do show up on Video-just watch C-span for proof) Essentially, you mate a camcorder to a "Part 90" video transmitter and you have an eye-in-the sky with a ground to air range of not more than about ten miles. Hand-held video receivers are available off-the shelf. It would not have resolution much better than your home television, but the Scanner or Observer could point and zoom as directed or requested by ground teams. I would love to work on that project if CAP had the minimal funding to make it happen.
Major Lord
How stable does the camera have to be kept to give usable imagery? Otherwise I can see potential in such a system
This system, uses off-the shelf components for the majority of the components. Any camcorder can be sued as long as it has a video out, same for the camera. The laptop is a tough book with an integrated gps and sprint card.
Quote from: Larry Mangum on February 01, 2011, 09:28:59 PM
This system, uses off-the shelf components for the majority of the components. Any camcorder can be sued as long as it has a video out, same for the camera. The laptop is a tough book with an integrated gps and sprint card.
That's where the system falls apart. It relies on the cell system.
Yes, it does depend upon the cell card currently. However they are looking into other means of communication as well to include sat communications and not necessarily through globalstar. You know, the majority of the people on CAP-Talk either have not had hands on experience with the unit or only saw a pre-production unit. How about we adopt a wait and see attitude for awhile before we tear it down?
Quote from: blackrain on February 01, 2011, 08:04:12 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on February 01, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Short range, real time air to ground video is easy, inexpensive, and can be accomplished though off-the-shelf, license free technology. I agree that it would be ideal in a tactical environment ( Zombies do show up on Video-just watch C-span for proof) Essentially, you mate a camcorder to a "Part 90" video transmitter and you have an eye-in-the sky with a ground to air range of not more than about ten miles. Hand-held video receivers are available off-the shelf. It would not have resolution much better than your home television, but the Scanner or Observer could point and zoom as directed or requested by ground teams. I would love to work on that project if CAP had the minimal funding to make it happen.
Major Lord
How stable does the camera have to be kept to give usable imagery? Otherwise I can see potential in such a system
The wider the view of the camera, the less noticeable the shake in the picture. (Wider shots also provide a wider depth of field and offer faster F stops for lower light) Helicopters use gyroscopically stabilized cameras within domed pan tilt units to produce good video, but I don't think we can afford that and I don't think anyone would let us saw an 18 inch hole in the bottom of an aircraft. The more you zoom, the worse handheld video gets, but some cameras have "anti-shake" features that can smooth this out quite a bit. Hams have been building these things for years, and although we can't use video transmitters that work as well, air to ground line of sight is the optimal signal path for the transmitters we can use. Not every second of video will be perfect, but for the guy on the ground looking for a way around or to a problem, its probably good enough. Is it good enough to do damage assessment for critical incidents? Who knows. You make due with whatever info you have.
Major Lord
Depending on how much room there is in the plane, you can use Steadi-Cam technology for stabilization.
Hang a foot long mast off the bottom of the camera, with a 12 ounce weight on the end, and it will provide an amazing amount of stabilization.
(No, a Steadi-cam does not use gyroscopes.)
My thought would be to use some form of of the shelf WiMax technology and we could field it to our repeater sites to give broad area coverage for our personnel and have a secure-ish network that we could use for our own work. We could support it by "selling" the access to our membership and to other goverment agencies as a portable network. Range that I've read is up to 50miles from a site on the surface. In the air that would usually mean the entire state could be covered with highspeed access.
Before moving forward with any new grandiose idea, at a minimum the following basic questions need be answered:
who are our clients?
who is demanding this specific solution?
does it fit within the value proposition offered by our organization?
Clients don't demand a specific technology (ex SSTV). They have a specific need (ex. real time data). We need to understand those needs and sometimes perhaps even help the client define what their real need is. In doing so, we'll find that we may or may not be the right organization to meet that need.
Quote from: c172drv on February 01, 2011, 11:58:34 PM
My thought would be to use some form of of the shelf WiMax technology and we could field it to our repeater sites to give broad area coverage for our personnel and have a secure-ish network that we could use for our own work. We could support it by "selling" the access to our membership and to other goverment agencies as a portable network. Range that I've read is up to 50miles from a site on the surface. In the air that would usually mean the entire state could be covered with highspeed access.
We could NEVER afford the license from the FCC to make this happen, or the equipment. a single site LTE (4G) system is just under 1 million dollars!
Quote from: A.Member on February 02, 2011, 12:02:44 AM
Before moving forward with any new grandiose idea, at a minimum the following basic questions need be answered:
who are our clients?
who is demanding this specific solution?
does it fit within the value proposition offered by our organization?
Clients don't demand a specific technology (ex SSTV). They have a specific need (ex. real time data). We need to understand those needs and sometimes perhaps even help the client define what their real need is. In doing so, we'll find that we may or may not be the right organization to meet that need.
Those are good points, but one wonders if this is a cart-before- the- horse situation or a chicken-before-the egg scenario. What does CAP offer? Clearly, we are not a disaster first responder. Most of our members are too young or too old to wade through rivers of death and destruction. We don't have the infrastructure to support any significant deployment. We are not ideally suited for "recovery" operations for the same reasons, and the fact that our airplanes can't retrieve victims terribly well. This leaves two major services: Airborne taxi, and Information Services (Surveillance) The thread starts off telling us that USAF has given us com gear of next generation capability, and one might suppose that this is an area within which USAF expects us to deliver service. ( Or, maybe we just bribed someone) For our other clients, my guess is if they can find the funding to do something, they would rather do it themselves than use CAP: Every organization (especially governmental organizations) has a pathological desire to grow out of hand.
Developing capabilities in advance instead of waiting passively for someone to hand it to us would be the wise thing to do. Remember Billy Mitchell? ( May he live forever in the halls of Vahalla!) He dragged the U.S. into developing capabilities no one in military or government thought we needed, and it short order, his services created the groundwork for winning a major war. (Yes, they 2b'd him for it, but all is forgiven!) Arguing for passivity in CAP's development is an argument for increasing irrelevancy.
Major Lord
Quote from: SARJunkie on February 02, 2011, 12:38:48 AM
Quote from: c172drv on February 01, 2011, 11:58:34 PM
My thought would be to use some form of of the shelf WiMax technology
We could NEVER afford the license from the FCC to make this happen, or the equipment. a single site LTE (4G) system is just under 1 million dollars!
WiMAX is available on license-free spectrum as well. The equipment is affordable, but you're not going to get 50 miles out of it with a mobile client. That kind of range is only fixed-location to fixed-location with high gain directional antennas. Introduce something along the lines of a USB WiMAX stick and you're down to single digits.
I know that my wing was proactive with the National Guard and actually was testing this equipment provided by the NG before National HQ even got these units to send when needed to regions/wings. I would suspect that many if not most states have this equipment and it's just a matter of wings' being very proactive with the NG.
At least in our wing the ES future primarily lies with airborne recon type missions with a small support staff on the ground (e.g. radio comms, IC, air ops).
RM
Currently SDWNG is flying DR missions for the state for our current flooding here, and today's sortie we flew with the GIIEPS equipment.
My reactions:
Our mission scanner had just previously attended the training session this past weekend for use of the equipment, so he was fresh and excited to use it, as I was excited to see it in action, however we were severely disappointed with it's capabilities.
First, the data connection was extremely spotty. The GIIEPS uses a sprint air card to secure it's data connection, which may work just fine in more populated areas, but Sprint coverage here in South Dakota is limited to a very small area, and not really present at all in the rural areas where we were taking photo's.
When taking video (when we had connection to stream) we noticed that unless you have a monopod or something to stabalize the camera, the camera shakes and vibrates too much as a result of just being in the aircraft for any useful video to be taken at altitude. While an overall picture (read:un-zoomed) can turn out fine, once you are zoomed in on an objective or target, the camera shake becomes a hinderance. So for future reference for any other aircrews who may use the system, it would be wise to bring along something to counteract that.
Second is really the most useful function we found was the chat function, as we could log in and sms with mission base. Albeit a pretty useless function in the presence of working radios, but there you go.
The still picture camera we got along with it was essentially useless for Aerial photography, the resolution was 8mp, but only with a limited digital zoom. It did have it's own data logger however the reading on the photos left out the minutes and seconds of the lat/long. Now whether or not it imbedded the rest of the information as a header file, or it could be changed in the settings was something we didn't play with. The camera is also waterproof at least... ::)
Overall we were pretty disappointed with it's usefulness for our purposes, however I could see how the system would come into it's own on certain CD or Homeland Security missions (in areas of adequate coverage) where you have specific personnel available to make use of the live video. The lack of coverage though, was the biggest issue we encountered, as when you don't have a connection, the whole system becomes nothing more than ballast.
Quote from: tsrup on April 05, 2011, 09:24:06 PM
Currently SDWNG is flying DR missions for the state for our current flooding here, and today's sortie we flew with the GIIEPS equipment.
My reactions:
Our mission scanner had just previously attended the training session this past weekend for use of the equipment, so he was fresh and excited to use it, as I was excited to see it in action, however we were severely disappointed with it's capabilities.
First, the data connection was extremely spotty. The GIIEPS uses a sprint air card to secure it's data connection, which may work just fine in more populated areas, but Sprint coverage here in South Dakota is limited to a very small area, and not really present at all in the rural areas where we were taking photo's.
When taking video (when we had connection to stream) we noticed that unless you have a monopod or something to stabalize the camera, the camera shakes and vibrates too much as a result of just being in the aircraft for any useful video to be taken at altitude. While an overall picture (read:un-zoomed) can turn out fine, once you are zoomed in on an objective or target, the camera shake becomes a hinderance. So for future reference for any other aircrews who may use the system, it would be wise to bring along something to counteract that.
Second is really the most useful function we found was the chat function, as we could log in and sms with mission base. Albeit a pretty useless function in the presence of working radios, but there you go.
The still picture camera we got along with it was essentially useless for Aerial photography, the resolution was 8mp, but only with a limited digital zoom. It did have it's own data logger however the reading on the photos left out the minutes and seconds of the lat/long. Now whether or not it imbedded the rest of the information as a header file, or it could be changed in the settings was something we didn't play with. The camera is also waterproof at least... ::)
Overall we were pretty disappointed with it's usefulness for our purposes, however I could see how the system would come into it's own on certain CD or Homeland Security missions (in areas of adequate coverage) where you have specific personnel available to make use of the live video. The lack of coverage though, was the biggest issue we encountered, as when you don't have a connection, the whole system becomes nothing more than ballast.
My experience echo's Travis', except make sure you take your Ginger Tablets before hand. I've been flying for "awhile" and have never been sick, but balancing a shaking video camera, while staring at the screen, was an nausea inducing experience :(
BTW, this was not with the GIIEP, but with a similar video camera, a capture card, and Ustream http://www.ustream.tv/ (http://www.ustream.tv/)
+1 on the above comments about usefulness, nausea, etc