[HCARC] Fwd: Monday Night HCARC Net 27 Nov 17

[kd5wdq .]

Crap!  did it again.  only replied to Harvey, not the reflector.

Forward to reflector...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "kd5wdq ." <kd5wdq at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:02:36 -0600
Subject: Re: [HCARC] Monday Night HCARC Net 27 Nov 17
To: "Harvey N. Vordenbaum" <tower2 at stx.rr.com>

Team,

I agree on a backup plan.  Preached this before.

Here is my concern, simplex will limit a net to only a few folks.
And in a REAL emergency, your going to need "all hands on deck".
(many will only have HT's in a real emergency.)

Come on team, think big -- get some long term goals!

Get a second repeater, then fall back on simplex.  Although it's good to
practice in simplex, so everyone knows what to do if necessary.

So it goes like this:
main repeater
second repeater (put on a pole at red cross?)
simplex
smoke signals, carrier pigeons, etc

My belief is this: it's good to have a backup plan, but it has to be
thought out!
Ask yourself who's gonna be able to operate in an emergency.  IMO, a secondary
repeater will serve more, even if it's not in the best of locations.

AF5SA

On 11/28/17, Harvey N. Vordenbaum <tower2 at stx.rr.com> wrote:
> Yes, I could do that.
> I could use my top of the mast 2 M gain antenna (55 ft. + 18 ft.) which I
> normally use for APRS.
> And with 100 w. from the TS2000 I could surely be heard over the area.
> We'll find out how many can change their radio to simplex. I would have to
> be able to listen on the repeater input side as well.
> That brings up another problem: turning the repeater off/on by remote
> control.  Hello Gerry?
>
> Hv
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hcarc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:hcarc-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of Kerry Sandstrom
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:25 AM
> To: hcarc at mailman.qth.net; kerryk5ks at hughes.net
> Subject: [HCARC] Mondat Night HCARC Net 27 Nov 17
>
>
> Last nights net was a disaster due to problems with the repeater.  We've
> talked about having a net that doesn't use the repeater.  I think its time
> to really look into this now.  We could , in the absence of repeater
> problems set aside one week a month to run a net without the repeater.  In
> addition, whenever the repeater is not working properly we could fall back
> to the net without a repeater.  Yes, there will be some who won't be able to
> check-in.  Perhaps this net will encourage them to upgrade their station so
> they can check-in.  The simplest approach would be to run a net on 146.98
> simplex.  That way, if the repeater is having a problem, it is just turned
> off and we all use .98 simplex for the net.  That way people will hear
> activity on the normal net frequency whether the repeater is in use or not.
>
> Bottom line - we've had enough problems with the repeater that it is past
> time to figure out how we can have a net without the repeater.  You can't
> terminate a disaster because the repeater is not working properly!
>
> Kerry, K5KS
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> HCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> HCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>