[Ares-races] ARL Number "Wish List"

[Ken Akasofu KL7JCQ]

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to give such an extensive reply.
Here are some comments:

At 06:38 AM 9/17/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Several of your suggested messages appear useful.  However I also note that
>many of them appear to be messages that would primarily be local tactical
>traffic.

The first three, yes.  The rest, however, were intended for mutual aid,
i.e. calling for help from ARES groups which are outside the locale
(Here in the ENY section, we have an EC for each county, so
a call for help could easily reach an area a few counties away).

>The primary point of the ARRL Numbered Radiogram list was (and is)
>to cut down the length of common messages used on long haul HF traffic nets.

Group 2 does seem that way.  Much of the Group 1 text seemed to me
more immediate, short range, though
(i.e. ARL 20 = Temporarily Stranded Need Assistance;
ARL 26 = Help/Care for evacuation needed at once, etc).

>The use of the numbered radiograms in local tactical nets is generally a bad
>idea.

Whether or not to use formal written traffic for ARES messages has
has been a topic of some very lively debate, at least in this neck of
the woods.  The anti-formal-traffic folks take the position that during
an emergency there is so many messages that need to be passed that
the lack of accuracy is an acceptable tradeoff for the increased speed.
The pro-formal-traffic folks bring up the importance of accuracy,
particularly when a precise written log of what was passed needs to be
recorded in the event of some sort of legal action.  Both sides have
a point...

My focus was more towards surveying the ARES groups who do use
formal written traffic for messages (if any) to see if they
use ARL numbers or not.

>The existing ARRL Numbered Radiograms are frequently misused badly by
>operators who are not regular dedicated NTS traffic handlers.

The examples of common errors you give are very good reference material for
NTS training / exercises.  If ARL numbers are misused, it's a good opportunity
to view it as a supporting case for the need to get involved in training
instead of not using it at all, i.e. we all get "blue sky" reports from
hams during Skywarn nets, but I wouldn't want to do away with Skywarn
just because of that, though.

>Transmitted message:
>ARL    NINETY    NINE    EXTENSIVE    TORNADO
>DAMAGE    AND    NUMEROUS    FATALITIES    HERE

Good point!...

>What happens when that transmitted message is monitored by the media, by
>SWLs, and by hams who aren't traffic handlers?
>There really is a good reason why one of the basic principles of Emergency
>Communications is to always use plain text for tactical messages.

This actually gets into another subject I have been thinking about, which
is to what extent is our usefulness limited by the fact that our communications
channels are not secure. I'm sure during an emergency there must be a lot of
important messages, but amateur radio can't be used to pass them.
Non-voice modes (CW, Packet & other digi modes, TV, etc) provide some
privacy, but other than that we don't have much.  I've been thinking if
there was some way to rectify this situation.

73,  Ken Akasofu KL7JCQ
ARRL Eastern New York
Section Emergency Coordinator