As the sponsor of the HFDEC yahoogroup (Hams for Disaster and Emergency
Communication), I try to stay current on what is happening. A lot
depends upon the kinds of disasters that you are exposed to. Our area
had a 1000 year flood event last August. As of this past week we had
something very similar with nearly 12 inches of rain over a 36 hour
period causing widespread flooding in the MN/IA/WI Tri-State region. But
like the last time, we did NOT have a communications emergency in SW
Wisconsin (last year SE MN did have CE issues), and other than some
power failures and some intermittent land line phones/internet, there
was mostly physical damage in low lying areas with other areas having
minimal problems.
I was called out on Sunday to activate the amateur side of the County
EOC although we eventually stood down later in the day. The advantage
Emergency Managers have with radio amateurs is their ability to draw
upon outside volunteers, whether formal, such as through ARES/RACES, or
informal through other associations.
At least in our area, the trend is to use radio amateurs as a pool of
workers to perform non communications functions, particularly Disaster
Assessment. This started well over a decade ago, when my wife and I both
went through the American Red Cross DAT (Disaster Assessment Team)
training so we had a basic understanding of how to do it and how the
information is used to compile the dollar figures you see with
disasters. In fact, Judy and I spent most of Tuesday working in the
field and performing such an assessment, although we found no dwelling
damage in the area we were assigned.
The trend is to openly accept volunteers these kinds of assignments.
Radio knowledge may be useful in some areas that may not have cell phone
coverage. Of course repeater coverage is not universally available
either:( With a very short training session, the volunteers are sent
out to perform their tasks.
The protocols? The ARES/RACES leadership at the state level wants only
Winlink 2000 as THE digital solution. It may be getting some use in more
populated areas, but we are very limited with access in our area with
the nearest Telpac quite a few miles away and if that should fail, there
would be no other access point reachable. Even that access requires
being at a high point to just make it. Needless to say, you don't build
a successful emergency network with that technology in our area. The
local EC has attempted to have a demonstration of Winlink 2000's
capabilities to a quickly set up Telpac within a mile or so of the EOC,
but on both occasions, the system did not work. (This is a highly
qualified network specialist who set it up so it apparently is some kind
of interference or other undetermined problem).
The more rural you get, it seems the less chance you have of any digital
solutions for emergency use. Most of what we do is strictly tactical
voice and that is 99% 2 meter FM. There is a good reason for that since
100% of our participants in our club and those who are member of the
ARES/RACES group have 2 meter FM and almost no other hams use HF for
emergency use. I have been the only liasion to the Section level
although we should have a couple other hams who could do it. My wife is
the only other ham with HF capability in her vehicle in our county.
Over many years I have tried to promote various digital modes, but there
is actually much, much, less interest today on the local level than 20
years ago! Back then almost anyone who was even moderately active had a
basic packet radio connection. And we had extensive intrastate and
interstate networks. Those days will never come back, therefore it is my
view that the only possible way to build a network is to have systems
that can go farther over a wider area. Packet can not do this since it
is a mode requiring good to very good signals. It is my view, that we
must try and build systems that are totally impervious to single point
failure. NBEMS is the only system that can theoretically do this at this
time. But is it getting much traction?
Winlink 2000 may have improved with more RF paths rather than its
initial design of relying almost totally on the internet, but it is
difficult to find out much about the topology. It is not even clear to
me as to how RMSpacket is an improvement over the Telpac design. Perhaps
someone here knows the specific improvements? The main difference that I
have read on the promotional material is that RMSpacket requires 32 bit
Windows. That is why Telpac systems are still being used if the
software/hardware is older, e.g., Windows 98 and can not even run RMSpacket.
RF access on the HF side of Winlink 2000 is dependent upon the expensive
proprietary SCS modem so there may be limited availability of the HF
side. I am not aware of anyone in my local area (100+ mile radius) that
has such capability. We can't even get hams to consider using 2 meter
SSB digital modes