Where did I say hams weren't needed for support communications? Jeez, when did ham radio volunteers become first line search and rescue personnel? Too many people seem to miss the distinction between communications emergency and search and rescue operations. Emergency communications doesn't mean being in the front line right alongside the search and rescue folks. I certainly am not trained to be in that kind of an area even if only doing communications work!
What I did say was that hams, acting as hams, shouldn't put themselves in a position where they could add to the load on the search and RESCUE personnel. If a ham is also a search and rescue member that is a different story. Here in the US, neither the ARC or SA will open shelters that are not fully supportable by their own personnel. They do not open shelters that are only supportable by search and rescue personnel. In most cases I've been involved with, the authorities won't even let them into a disaster area until it has been cleared. I already have the beard growth! Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You have led a sheltered life. Try operating in the Philipines after > a volcano blows, or in Mexico after the same incident, or in Africa > after a transvaal fire, then tell me Hams are not needed. It's too > bad we are getting comments like this from the uninformed with no > experience. Get some beard growth and you'll rapidly change your mind. > > 73 > > Les > > At 08:13 AM 1/11/2008, jgorman01 wrote: > > >--- In > ><mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, > >Alan Barrow <ml9003@> wrote: > > > > > > ""snip"" > > > > > > I personally had a Red Cross shelter leader run after my truck and > > > flag me down because she thought we were packing up. quote: "You > > > don't know how much we still need you guys. Until you arrived we had > > > no communications since the big green helicopter landed and kicked > > > out pallets or MRE's. The phones still don't work, please do not > > > leave." > > > > > > Don't think that did not change my perspective and disillusionment. > > > This is not an ego thing, exactly the opposite. Made me realize that > > > independent of what I thought we could or should do (my ego), we had > > > a job to do. I should set aside my annoyances & preferences, that > > > what we were doing was important and needed. > > > >Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and > >isolated that it required helicopter delivery of food and water. Yet > >you also indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you > >could drive to the shelter. Maybe you were driving a monster truck? > >Some of this appears to be an appeal to emotion. > > > >I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would > >open a shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply > >vehicles nor that had SOME kind of communications. I am pretty sure > >that the government authorities would not authorize this either. To > >do otherwise is simply asking for the shelter staff to require > >'rescuing' at some time in the future thereby adding to the problem. > >Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the > >facts. Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of > >communication, but never the less, it is communications. > > > >""snip"" > > > > > I guess the core difference is some are saying we have no business > > > even providing emergency service. And I believe that is a very > > > extreme and unsound position. > > > > > > >Your guess is wrong. No one I have seen post is saying that we have > >no business providing emergency communications where appropriate and > >in a manner that support the public best. > > > > > > > > ""snip"" > > > > > > So what's this have to do with digital radio? I think we have a > > > large opportunity to contribute. We all want an alternative to $1k > > > proprietary modems. But until we get that alternative there is some > > > value there. > > > > > > That does not mean we can or should compromise operation in the rest > > > of the bands. But there needs to be a place. Just like there should > > > be for other digital modes, current and future. > > > > > > The whole idea that a legal limit rtty contest op is somehow > > > appropriate & allowed, yet other digi sigs should not be is > > > non-sensical. Some of the new modes offer incredible performance & > > > efficiency. they can be fun for casual work. But they could also > > > offer significant value in an emergency if harnessed. > > > > > > >You might have continued and made an argument for full blown pactor 3 > >bandwidth for emergencies but you blew it by including casual use. The > >use of wide signals within a limited spectrum WILL displace several > >others that want to use narrow signals. It is obvious that you have > >no love for rtty, yet several rtty signals can fit into the bandwidth > >of a 2.2 kHz pactor 3 signal. Would you impinge upon their preferred > >mode of operation for your casual use? It sounds like it. No one is > >guaranteed a time or place to operate. The wider the signal you wish > >to use, the fewer places and times there are that you can use it. > >That's life, move on. > > > >I also assume you are upset over rm-11392 that would limit bandwidths. > >You really haven't made a case for casual use of anything wider than > >the 1.5 kHz that is being asked for. Remember, this bandwidth limit > >has been there for a long time, it just wasn't codified. The current > >rules were adequate prior to the introduction of ofdm modulation to > >the amateur bands. Pactor 3 is simply EXPLOITING a loophole in the > >way that the regulations are currently written. Perhaps you should > >write a comment to the fcc that you believe bandwidth limits are ok > >for all data modes except for ofdm emissions which should have no > >limits on their bandwidth. It sounds like that is what you wish. > > > > > ""snip"" > > > > > > Have fun, > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > >Jim > >WA0LYK > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1218 - Release Date: > >1/10/2008 1:32 PM >
