[BARC-List] E. Mass. SET Results

[Joel N. Weber II]

> We learned that once our Primary 40m (NVIS) frequency was taken over by a
> non-participating slow-scan video station, that the secondary HF frequency
> became too crowded. (needs Net Control Operator)

Does this also imply that more than two HF frequencies should be
designated?

> While the locations selected for the remote sites were optimum for
> individual team communications, today's high power equipment, good antennas,
> and the presence of a "lift condition", created a condition on simplex
> similar to most DX pile-ups. Without a Net Control Operator to sort out the
> hailing stations and directing us to alternate frequencies to pass traffic,
> weaker, distant stations were not recognized, or if they were on alternate
> frequencies, they were not heard. Emphasis must be placed on proper use of
> hailing frequencies/initial contact freq's, with direction to an alternate
> by a NCS. (Thought should be given by Section Manager and SEC, to assigning
> individual club simplex frequencies for better hailing.)

I seem to recall that there were a large number of alternate
frequencies listed in the plan that people could use if they needed
more frequencies, so at least some of this is a matter of operator
training.  (And while it's possible to write a drill plan that has the
right number of frequencies for a particular drill, nobody knows how
to predict what real emergencies will actually happen, so operator
training is probably a more effective place to solve this problem.)

I ended up not being able to participate until the last half hour of
the drill, and I don't think I ever moved off the logistics frequency
(other than when I got confused by the dual recieve on my radio and
tried calling N1VUX on the wrong frequency).

> The next step for our SATERN/BERT Group must be to test our ability to
> communicate within the ring of "high ground".  We must dispatch mobile
> operators, or the canteen, to many of the shelters, hospitals, and local
> EOC's to recognize those problem communication  area's we may encounter in a
> real world disaster in Metro-Boston .

It's also the case that having worked with served agencies before a
real emergency happens will greatly increase the chances that they'll
be willing to work with hams in a real emergency, and I feel like the
SET of this year and last both barely scratch the surface of the
possibilities for served agency interactions.

> Also, the equipment used at the EOC
> was provided by SATERN members and took considerable time to transport,
> erect antennas and set-up.  The Salvation Army Mass. Division MUST purchase
> it's own equipment, and provide a permanently equipped in house EOC
> location, that can be opened and manned in a reasonable time to be able to
> respond quickly. The Sharon, Mass. "Camp Wonderland" should also be equipped
> and tested as an alternate EOC location.

Is it actually necessary to have radios permanently installed in these
locations, or would it be sufficient to have antennas, feedline, and
batteries permanently installed?  As for space, might it be adaquate
for them to designate a room that will be used by hams in an
emergency, but could also ordinarily be used for other purposes, with
a closet permanently allocated to hams to which feedline could be run
and in which batteries could be stored?  And might it be appropriate
to use some of the equipment which gets donated to BARC for a
Salvation Army installation?

There's also always the ``what if we have to operate somewhere else?''
question.  I had been under the impression that one of the things that
differentiates hams from the various other communications services is
that we're better equipped to improvise, etc.  While it may well be
appropriate to have key locations be better equipped, it does sound to
me like the Salvation Army group had an effective drill in setting up
a temporary station at a location that doesn't have permanent
infrastructure.

> 1 - separation of EOC operators (too distracting hearing multiple traffic)

My experience in VHF multiop contesting has been that headsets with
microphones and footpedals for push to talk seems to be mostly
adaquate for that sort of thing, although it may be that traffic in an
EOC is more interesting to listen to than ``please copy my FN42'' for
the 500th time, such that more effective separation may be required to
prevent operators from listening to an interesting conversation that
they shouldn't get distracted with.  But I'm not entirely clear on
what was actually at the Salvation Army for the SET.