Rick, Good posting. I don't know how many times to say it, I'm not against volunteering and using ham radio for emergency communications. However, for me ham radio does come after several other things. I don't think some of the emcomm folks understand this. For the folks that went to the South and helped with Katrina, more power to them. I'm glad they didn't have family or job requirements so they could go there for what was obviously a quite long period of time. To make snide remarks about the, I'll call them middle age hams, that didn't go is an indicator to me of the mindset.
Some years back I went to a meeting about joining an ARES group. Let me tell you, they didn't want volunteers, they wanted conscripts. To the point of even saying they expected us to leave our families to fend for themselves at times. I threw the sign up form in the trash and never looked back. My wife would have come home and smashed all my radio gear if she had been there. My family comes first, my property second, friends and neighbors third, and ham radio last. If I had a choice of going to my son's practice or a drill, my son would win out. Tough cookies if the emcomm folks don't like my attitude. The whole point of the thread to begin with was not about doing emcomm work, it was about whether accepting government money to buy ham gear was a good thing. Somewhere the thread got off track. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Guys, > > You both have valid views. Isn't it more that one is mostly discussing > smaller types of disasters, the ones that are the most common, and the > other is discussing much larger scale incidents that rarely happen (but > they do happen and we may wish to consider preparing for them as best we > can)? > > Mostly it is a matter of degree. How much infrastructure survived? How > many hams remain in the area and who are not affected by the situation > to the point of not being able to help locally? How bad is the > situation? How many resources is government putting into the area? > > In an ideal world, when disasters occur, there will be enough resources > from emergency management to handle any situation. But realistically we > know this is not possible. Therefore, volunteers help to temporarily > alleviate the shortfalls of at least some of the resources. We hams can > lend our assistance to communications shortfalls and even other areas if > we wish to do so. > > While most hams do not participate with emegency groups on a regular > basis, my experience has been that many will help the call goes out. It > is a lot to ask someone to do this. We saw that recently with our flood > disaster her in SW Wisconsin this past summer. > > There is often a substantial amount of politics involved in any > volunteer activity of this type and it turns off many who would > otherwise be active. This is more true of amateur radio because in order > to be in a leadership position in ARES you must be an ARRL member. That > excludes almost 80% of hams. If they live in a Section with different > emergency groups, they may be able to find their comfort zone with other > groups or agencies. In our Section, we have one amateur radio group, > which is a combined ARES/RACES structure. > > On thing I want to reinforce, is that just because you don't totally > agree with each other is no reason to claim that this forum is > "anti-emcomm." Many of us have this as one of our primary interests and > some cases may have been involved in this activity with CAP, MARS, and > ham radio, for many decades. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Alan Barrow wrote: > > jgorman01 wrote: > > > >> Hate to tell you but some of us cranky, bitter, and rude (old) men > >> have simply been there and done that. > >> > > I certainly saw and worked with some generous & kind old man hams in my > > efforts. (Shared a shelter operation with an 80 year old!!) But did not > > see hardly any of the same ones that annoy us all on HF there. The rude, > > cranky, selfish types. > > > >> For example, do you think a permanently installed "ham" antenna > >> is going to survive on a roof top when all other commercial grade > >> antennas have been destroyed? > >> > > This tells me you've not been there, and are missing the point. Yes, ham > > antennas do survive when properly installed on hospital & shelter > > rooftops. It's the repeaters and high sights which do not. Even in a > > hurricane. Now if the EOC is leveled, as happened in the county I worked > > in coastal Miss, all bets are off. > > > > The reason hospitals (and such) preinstall antennas is not to support > > their communications, it's to be able to communicate with ad-hoc > > shelters & relief efforts. IE: With the very volunteers you mention. > > Most often on 2m, but at times you need HF. > > > > No, the HF dipole won't survive. But the coax to the roof, the radial > > net, the antenna mount, and the HF vertical carefully stored in the > > closet will. And will go up in 15m. > > > > > > > >> Part of our ability to do emcomm is > >> using our OWN equipment in a portable fashion to replace that which > >> has been destroyed. The other part is the geographic spread of hams > >> in a location. It makes what gets destroyed somewhat random. Relying > >> on prepositioned equipment is no better than public safety doing the > >> same. > >> > >> > > You've never had to stand outside a large building to get coverage then. > > Or deal with running coax out a door, around the side of the building, > > etc. 300' of coax pinched in a door to keep skeeters out rather than a > > nice clean run of prepositioned coax. > > > > I spent quite a bit of time with the head of mtc of one of our local > > hospital families. He's a good friend, and wanted a joint debrief on > > what he & I both saw at Katrina. His action was to pre-position multiple > > coax runs, dual band antenna (short diamond type), etc. Common sense > > stuff. If the need arises he's now setup to communicate with ham > > volunteers. This means those manning red cross shelters, ferrying relief > > supplies, ferrying staff, etc. Not hospital business, but community > > recovery efforts. > > > > > > > >> Have you ever told the ARC or SA they should include > >> commercial radios in their shelter standard inventory? > >> > > Again, it's clear you've never participated in a large scale relief > > effort by your questions. ARC has dedicated low band freqs for their > > primary ops. What they do not have, and will be unlikely to ever afford > > is radios/gear/ops for every shelter in a large scale disaster. That's > > where ham's fill the gap. There were hundred's of shelters in Katrina. > > Each with dozens to hundreds of people in them. 20+ shelters in the > > single county I worked. > > > > Only one of them had communications during the hurricane itself, because > > a lowly no code tech barely out of highschool had the foresight to > > preposition his IC-706 and a dual band antenna prior to the storm. As > > soon as it was safe, he erected HF dipole so he could monitor the nets, > > and as soon as other ham's arrived they were linked. > > > > The others simply were out of communication. No way to get medical > > assist. No way to get law enforcement. (the two main types of > > communications assist shelters need) > > > >> These are all issues some of have dealt with and have experience in. > >> Some of us have lost our predilection with being ham-centric in all > >> things radio related. > >> > >> > >> > > Let's see, we used: > > > > - GMRS > > - Red Cross low band (for several days I had a Red Cross mobile radio > > installed in my truck) > > > > Again, far afield from digital radio. I had not realized that the > > digitalradio forum was so anti-emcomm, which is a bit sad, as it's a > > natural fit. Last post from me on this subject. > > > > Have fun, > > > > Alan > > km4ba > > >
