[Ares-races] Use of HF for local communications

[Rick Hampton]

George,

I don't live in CT, so ultimately I don't really care how you guys finally
settle this, but I do have a few more comments.  This will also be my last post
on the issue.

My perception, based on your comments, is that you lack understanding and/or
experience on several fronts.  This may or may not be true, but they are my
perception based on your comments.

1) I've not seen anything in this thread indicating there is a push to create an
HF-primary (or HF only) ARES system in CT, only a push to create a state-wide HF
ARES system with a primary frequency.  The former, in my opinion, is just as
misguided as creating a VHF/UHF-only state-wide ARES system based on repeaters,
linked or not.  The latter is nothing but good contingency planning and
efficient resource tasking.  To quote an old piece of wisdom, "Failing to plan
for contingencies is planning to fail when they occur."

2) You state, "It is demonstrably more convenient to deal with setting up VHF
and up antenna." and, "Handheld/portable equipment is essential. How many
operators have 75M SSB hand held equipment? And how effective would that be?"  I
suggest you visit the HFPack website at www.hfpack.com.  If you do, you will
find that it is extremely easy to put together a multimode HF station that is
both mobile or portable (yes, even handheld if you insist) and effective across
ALL the bands.  Even without all the new gear, I can still have my 28 year-old
HF rig up and running in a field portable, 24x7x365, NVIS configuration within
15 minutes.  Long-haul (>500 miles) 24x7x365 data circuits will take a few hours
longer, but you're not interested in long-haul circuits anyway.  With 15 years
in an Air Force/Air National Guard Combat Communications Group, and 30 years as
an Advanced/Extra class ham, I can assure you it is sometimes MUCH easier
installing an HF station in a building than a VHF/UHF station.  Been there, done
that, got the BDUs and papers to prove it.

3) "If one wants more range, why not consider 6 M or 2 M SSB?"  Granted, 6M and
2M SSB have increased range, but they are still, under normal conditions, line
of sight propagation systems and don't go around obstacles very well.  Planning
reliable coverage using these modes requires advanced planning to determine link
budgets, path profiles, and relay sites; tasks not easily or quickly done during
an actual emergency.

4) As to human resources, while Technician-class operators are definitely an
important asset, they are inherently a limited asset due to the restrictions
placed on them by their license class.  Mind you, I'm not trying to denigrate
Tech-class operators; my wife and two kids only hold Tech licenses.  They can
hold their own well enough with VHF and UHF systems, but if they needed HF
capability, they would be up that proverbial creek with out me.  In my opinion,
anyone seriously interested in performing ARES/RACES work should invest in
upgrading their license before investing in their equipment.  In a pinch, you
only need one radio station per site, but 3 to 4 operators.  If that radio
station would happen to require HF capabilities due to poor/nonexistant repeater
coverage or outright loss of the repeater, Tech-class licensees are quite
limited in their roles. Frankly, this is a self-imposed limitation that can
easily be overcome with a little personal initiative.

Finally, let me leave you with one last thought.  The hams who came before us
established a legacy of being able to provide reliable communications under
adverse conditions any time and any place.  Seeing that VHF/UHF linked repeater
systems were unavailable to them, perhaps we have been spoiled and simply
forgotten just how easy reliable HF systems can be implemented and how important
they really are.

Regards,

Rick Hampton, WD8KEL

George Andrews wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Several comments on this topic.
>
> Flexibility,  convenience and optimal use of resources in operation is of
> utmost priority. We should have HF available when needed. It is demonstrably
> more convenient to deal with setting up VHF and up antenna. With the linked
> system in CT, I believe the state is covered quite well as you indicated. In
> many cases the response will be localized and perhaps much of the
> communication need will involve ranges of less than 20 miles. Which can be
> set up and operational more quickly for such purposes, HF or VHF? One can
> also get some rather interesting results using FM simplex and horizontal
> antennae! What about 6 M FM?
>
> If one wants more range, why not consider 6 M or 2 M SSB? There are so many
> radios that cover HF through 70 cm (all mode) today and I am sure a lot of
> folks own one. Ten watts and a horizontal loop will do quite well, up that
> by 10 db and your in even better shape.
>
> And now to optimizing use of available resources. Consider the number of
> ARES members that have VHF equipment. Handheld/portable equipment is
> essential. How many operators have 75M SSB hand held equipment? And how
> effective would that be? One should also take a look at the license class
> held by ARES members. A switch to HF as the primary means of communication
> would result extremely poor use of human resources. There would be much less
> that many ARES members could do. Can we afford to "push away" help?
>
> A switch to HF for primary communication would result in a lack of
> flexibility ( use whatever works for the situation). it is not convenient
> (or practical for portable communication) and it does not make best use of
> available human resources(tech. class license participation). It is such a
> bad idea, perhaps I have been hooked by a troll! But then it may just be a
> proposition put forth by those who have little to no practical experience in
> such matters.  In any event, I am in CT and will support the continued use
> of VHF and up as the primary mode of communication.
>
> George Andrews, RRPT
> N1YAE FN31kj
> WPYQ853
> gandrews@ntplx.net