[FADCA] Additional discussion on emergency coms
bud Thompson
[email protected]
Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:43:38 -0500
Deltona
Sunday March 3 0730EST
INTRO - Here is where get Out of The Box - and spring right into the
21st century.
FROM RUSS:
> I have attached a file regarding the discussion of emergency
>communications. It should be compatible with Winlink and FPAC switches in
>Florida, however, the discussion leans toward the WinLink support of
>messaging between the disaster site and SEOC.
>
> Russ
Hi, Russ:
I'll bet we can't use attachments on e-mail lists stuff - so never
got it. I'll respond here to what did come through as text. I'm
not sure of the source of your information.
(Addressing/routing of messages through FPAC to anywhere that
is contiguous on the layered network should not be a problem, including
messages to/from WL2K stations. We can set that issue aside)
Here is the item of the day from your note:
Again, you hit on a hot topic for discussion - just what information
in the form of "messages" will our clients need us to send over
our digital network(s)?
We ham volunteers know our over-the-air capabilities, but in most
cases do not know all the possible needs of our clients. Actually,
I am of the mind that because the typical client may not fully
understand what all we can do, he has not asked us to make preparations
for some capabilities. Just how valuable/useful digital ham radio
may be during emergencies is not yet well defined. On the fly sheet
of a paper that I started several months ago on the general
subject for the Seminole County ARES/RACES I state:
"We must be certain there is really a need, that is, a problem
for which digital message handling over Amateur Radio is a reasonable,
in fact, the "right" solution. At this time, we may be in as
much need to make that determination as is our need to be sure
we can provide the solution if needed."
On Feb 21st I presented a program (a.k.a. sales pitch) to the
Seminole County ARES/RACES group on using digital ham radio in
emergencies. It was titled:
A CASE FOR SYSTEMATIC
AMATEUR RADIO DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO SUPPORT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Of course the operative word is "systematic".
If you like, I can e-mail the slides I used for notes in a non-list
e-mail as an MS-Word attachment.
Back to your message:
> 4. Messages to SEOC
>
> a. NTS Format only.
>
> 1. Priority of messages: "Emergency" or "Priority"
>
> 2, Service message to originating station.
>
Here is where I want to take that first big step out of the box-
This is clearly from the planning, capability, and thinking of
the 1960s. Most communications were on voice, there were no ham
digital networks except HF RTTY, and all messages that needed
confirmation from beginning to end (i.e. "record" traffic) were
set up in NTS Format. Such messages might have to be transferred
from voice to cw and back to voice nets - the word count or "Check"
in the preamble was the only error checking! The texts were
organized "Western Union-like", short, terse, and purposely kept
under 40- 50 words (250 characters) maximum because all were handled
manually. The longer the text the greater the chance of error,
especially on voice circuits.
All upper case because the underlying Baudot code was only five
elements - it was the 1960s.
Ham radio packet and ARQ digital communications are error-correcting
modes, eliminating the need for "word count" as a means of checking
content. Once entered as "data" into a computer file and processed
through a terminal program and sent to a data controller/modem/TNC,
the entire process of getting a message from the originating radio
station to the target radio station is fully automatic. The chance
for errors in the process is extremely low. These factors now
permit ham radio "record" traffic to contain data and information consisting
of many "words". We now think in terms of files that are 2k,
5k, even 10K long being moved point-to-point over vhf circuits
in no time at all. Even on HF using less than 500hz bandwidth,
a 10K file can be sent across the country in just a few minutes.
A new HF mode (PacTOR III) is on the horizon that requires 2.4KHz
bandwidth but will more than quadruple present throughput.
With the total systematic approach presently available to us,
the only manual portion of this process is the initial keyboard
data entry and subsequently tearing the paper off the printer
at the destination. (Or, preferably, opening the e-mail message.)
One traditional responsibility of ham radio in The Last mile has
been to provide health and welfare information on those citizens
inside to their families/friends outside the Last Mile. While
traditionally this too has been planned to be effected using NTS-
formatted messages, we find that it has become out of vogue in
practice. In the past thirty years most of this type of activity
during emergencies has been handled by impromptu voice nets on
40 and 20m in a more informal "punch list" manner which has, in
my opinion, not proved to be particularly effective. That said,
there is so little interest in and training for NTS nets/procedures
now to essentially render that process ineffective to support
a large area Last Mile.
The SEDAN (flat) packet network is set up to handle "messages"
to the "State Control Point" (SEOC). There are specific SEDAN
rules including: (1) the message length is limited to a specific
(low) number of 80-character lines and (2) BBS-to-BBS transfers
are not permitted. This is more of the thinking from the 1960s.
If we only need to transfer information of, say, less than 500
characters (100 words) to the state EOC - why use digital? Certainly
with all the HF systems and vhf/uhf voice repeaters it would be
more efficient to just use voice (or preferably cw!).
I see no reason to build a packet network just to handle messages
with less information/text than systematic overhead.
We need to get this part of our thinking out of the box.
To do that we must first build a case for our clients to need
large message data transfers within The Last Mile and out to the
connected point(s).
In the program last week I proposed that much of the "business"
of business and government is handled by e-mail today. In larger
organizations e-mail has replaced voice telephone calls to a large
extent. I propose that in the Last Mile many of the clients we
serve will still be using e-mail on an intranet. Many EOCs are
equipped with a computer on the LAN for every department. During
an emergency/exercise a department representative(s) moves from
his/her office to the EOC, and sits at the computer conducting
business as usual, much through the medium of e-mail.
Within the Last Mile - EOC-to-agency or EOC-to-shelter or County
EOC-to-next-County EOC communications are by definition
disrupted. With a ham digital networked computer on the EOC LAN,
necessary digital communications among these locations can be carried
over the ham network . No need to dumb-down the message texts,
no need to convert to NTS format, just re-route to go out the
HAMPORT on the EOC LAN. Certainly no need for additional licensed
operators to support the process.
There is no need for a shelter-to-EOC message that comes into
the ham packet station at the EOC to be hand-carried to its addressee
department; just put it on the EOC LAN. We have the technology
to make this happen.
Western Union telegrams (NTS-type message format) were the medium
of business in the 60s.
E-mail is the medium of business in the 21st Century.
Yes, it will take a major sales effort with both our clients and
among the hams -but remember -
If you build it, they will come.
There is more of my Madness - but this is enough to start getting
us thinking out of the box.
73, bud N0IA
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: [FADCA] Additional discussion on emergency coms
> I have attached a file regarding the discussion of emergency
>communications. It should be compatible with Winlink and FPAC switches in
>Florida, however, the discussion leans toward the WinLink support of
>messaging between the disaster site and SEOC.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> State EOC Communications
> 1, On an Annual, semi-annual, or quarterly basis:
> Send the call to the SEOC that are approved to send messages to the
> SEOC or originate Tactical Conections to the SEOC. Would be done in
> the same manner as the designated voice stations.
>
> Use the same method of filtering calls as used by bbss to accept
message
> or file transfer between BBSs.
>
> 2. Sending Messages to the SEOC to activate the calls for disaster
> communication support at the start of a situation. (Calls from the list
> in #1.)
>
> 3. Tatical Communications.
>
> a. Use connect statement "C SEOC" and automatic routing would handle
> the connection to the SEOC.
>
> b. Filter at SEOC station to exclude all but those in #1 above.
>
> 4. Messages to SEOC
>
> a. NTS Format only.
>
> 1. Priority of messages: "Emergency" or "Priority"
>
> 2, Service message to originating station.
>
> 3. All messages sent over the signature of County Emergency
Manager.
> 5. Daily Test Message.
>
> a. Test message sent as a REQ so an automatic respose could be
> generated.
> b. Sending station has responsibity to report to a designated station
> any failure to receive test message response back from EOC.
>
> Discussion. System needs to be auto routing for tactical or messages.
Needs
> to not depend on one station in Tallahassee to be operational. (AD4DO was
> off the air for months and could not respond to test messages.) We need
> to limit outages by reducing the number of points the message or tactical
> communications must go through to reach SEOC. The system needs to not
> depend on favorable radio propogation. Must be usable 24/7.
>
> Russ Oder
> N4KOX
>