[KYHAM] ARES & Local Response

[wa4qal at ix.netcom.com]

Scott Thile (K4SET) wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> With all do respect, I think you should reserve your critical comments to
> something you have more fully explored. And in my opinion, yes, you are
> wrong.

Ouch!  That sounds like the beginning of a flame-war, which no one
needs here.  Let's try to stay calm and discuss this in an intellectual 
manner.  I'm convinced that both you and Jeff have some valid points.  
So, let me see if I can add more light than heat with the following 
discussion.

> We need to be as well prepared locally to provide back up communications as
> we can be. Think how long it was before you and other dedicated hams were
> able to get to the effected areas to start to help! How many lives could
> have been saved if better back up EMcomms were available inside the areas
> hardest hit. Its certainly great to have jump teams available to help out in
> areas where the local efforts are overwhelmed or destroyed, but one effort
> does not compromise the other. Both are important, and in many cases the
> equipment and skills can serve double duty for each.

We certainly do need to be prepared to offer backup communications.  
Unfortunately, not every location has the financial resources to put 
into multiple redundant backup systems, or, for that matter, even a 
single, well designed and adequately hardened system.  Hardening systems 
against all possible assaults can be (and usually is) an extremely expensive 
proposition, which not all amateur organizations can afford.

Another issue is finding an adequate number of operators.  Some counties
in Kentucky have only a few amateur licensees.  The perfect equipment 
setup won't do anyone any good without people to operate it.  Thus, jump
teams are a vital part of emergency communications.  But, it takes time 
to assemble jump teams and get them transported into an area.  Thus, the
local community will have to depend on their own local resources for a 
period of time.

> The Williamson county system is top notch and state of the art. It is built
> on multiple redundant systems some of which WILL survive in any given
> incident. They are not dependant on one another, or local conventional comm
> systems. The equipment is all located in hardened sites, and in many cases
> staffed by ARES personnel who are also working full time in communications
> in the very offices where the equipment resides. In short, they are better
> prepared than any group I've ever seen or imagined. This was simply not the
> case in the Gulf.

I'll start by saying that I'm not personally familar with the Williamson
County system, and, as such, my critisms may not be well founded. 
However, I'd be somewhat surprised if there aren't faults which could 
result in the failure of the system.  In my experience, most "hardened" 
sites are only hardened against physical damage, not necessarily against
electromagnetic hazards.  While it is possible to harden sites against 
electromagnetic hazards, that's usually extremely expensive, and most 
sites can't afford or don't need that kind of hardening.  And, such 
hardening requires extreme discipline by the facility managers, since 
even a single line (telephone, cable-TV, intercom, speaker, extension 
cord, etc.) that's run into the area can completely and totally defeat 
the electromagnetic hardening of the site.  If you've ever seen the 
damage a direct lightning strike can cause to a emergency communications
equipment room, and then consider that that destructive energy can sneak
in on the most unlikely of conductors, you'll begin to appreciate 
exactly how hard it is to electromagnetically harden a site.  And, if 
you think a lightning bolt is bad, don't even begin to think about a 
nuclear induced electromagnetic pulse (EMP).  It is possible to design 
electromagnetically hardened sites, but you usually start with well 
grounded, faraday shielded rooms, complete with RF gasketed doors, 
screened ventillation shafts, and all power and signal cables routed 
through a single entry conduit with each and every conductor in every 
cable connected to a suitable discharge device.  And, only then do you 
really start to get serious.

As for the equipment being staffed by ARES members who also work in the 
same area, that's another cause for concern.  All too often, in the 
event of a major disaster, every agency needs its workers for its own 
purposes, leaving none for ARES and emergency communications purposes.
Ideally, the emergency communications duties would be performed by 
people who would not be pulled into their agency's normal response 
activities.

Another problem with state of the art communications systems is that 
frequently limits the number of operators available.  Sometimes, it's 
better to go with a low tech solution to maximize the number of 
operators.  Not every operator can afford to have state of the art 
systems.

> Jeff, I'm surprised you would question their motivation. The motivation was
> to have the best and most viable system in place and staffed by very capable
> people, some of whom WILL be there in most any scenario likely to hit that
> area. On top of the local effort, many of the Williamson County ARES
> operators are fully prepared to be deployed to other areas with excellent
> mobile jump team capability. 

I don't question anyone's motivation.  We're all in this to help.

> As I mention to you privately, you have an open invitation if you really
> want to see what's going on in Williamson County. I took advantage of this a
> couple of months ago, and I could not have been more impressed or
> encouraged. I only hope we can do as well in KY, and aspire to do so in the
> coming months.

I wouldn't mind taking you up on that offer myself, but I'm going to be 
tied up for the next few months.  

I hope that Kentucky will have adequate communications when a disaster 
strikes.  However, I also recognize that many areas have severe 
shortages of people, equipment, and funding.  In any case, I think we 
need to be creative when it comes to planning our emergency 
communications plans.  What works for one area will almost certainly not
work for another area.  A well populated, equipped, and funded area such 
as northern Kentucky or Louisville won't have (or even need) the same 
emergency communications plan as a more sparsely populated rural area.

> Anyone interested in EMcomm work would be well served to look at the
> Williamson County, TN operation as an excellent state of the art example of
> working with served agencies to maximize readiness, build relationships, and
> secure funding for the cost of the best equipment. The result is a wonderful
> system and trained personnel capable of handling most any disaster scenario.

One of the best things that any amateur radio organization can do is to 
become familar with the local governmental emergency response director.
The next step is to train as much as is possible so that the team will 
be ready when a diaster occurs.  Then, it is just a matter of time until
the relationship is built between the organizations.  However, it does 
require dedication of the people involved.  A single poorly responded 
to incident can negate years of good service.  

> 73 and 75, Scott, K4SET
> KY ARES, ASEC of Digital Communications
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: kyham-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
>>[mailto:kyham-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Martin
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:57 PM
>>To: kyham at mailman.qth.net
>>Subject: [KYHAM] ARES & Local Response
>>
>>I read with interest the QST 3-part series of the Williamson 
>>County Tennessee implementation of Winlink 2000 and other 
>>technologies in support of the local Emergency Management.  
>>What a nice system; very elaborate using several different 
>>technologies and a lot of folks put in a lot of long hours to 
>>get it going.  But I wonder what the motivation was?

Obviously, they want to improve their county's emergency communications 
capabilities.  However, one has to sometimes question whether the 
implementation they chose was the best one for the particular disaster
scenarios they've planned for, and whether they've considered all 
possible disaster scenarios.

>>I recently spent almost two weeks assisting at the Gulf Coast 
>>in support of the Katrina relief effort; I worked with the 
>>Red Cross at several shelters dispatched through Montgomery 
>>AL.  The area I worked in had no communications, all cells 
>>phones and land lines were inoperable.  Anything that had an 
>>elaborate infrastructure was dead.  Most of the local Hams 
>>were not assisting with EM Comms, outsiders were.  The local 
>>Hams were taking care of their families, etc.  This was my 
>>first time involved in something like this and I learned a 
>>lot but there has been something bothering me I wanted to get 
>>this groups thoughts on:

The Katrina diaster was probably as close to a worst case situation 
as any of us are likely to experience (and survive).  It resulted in 
almost the complete destruction of the communications infrastructure,
as well as the destruction of the transportation and life support
infrastructure.  I'm afraid that few communities are adequately prepared 
for such a disaster, although such occurrances may be a lot more common 
than most people would be prepared to believe.  While we almost 
certainly won't experience such hurricane induced diasters within 
Kentucky, we may very well experience an earthquake induced diaster of 
the same magnitude.

Such a disaster would almost certainly result in the destruction of
most of the communications infrastructure in Kentucky (telephone, 
cellular-phones, broadcast radio, broadcast television, public service
radio, etc.), as well as the electricity distribution network and the
transportation industry.  Thus, any emergency communications operators
may need to be prepared to operate their radio equipment for an extended 
period of time independently of the eletricity grid, as well as 
independent of the fuel delivery system.

>>Should we not expect that in a Disaster  the local Hams will 
>>"Stand-Down"
>>taking caring of their own personal needs and the needs of 
>>their families?

A relief worker can't do a good job if he's wondering if his 
wife/kids/parents/etc. are alive and well.  No matter how dedicated a 
relief worker is, his family has to come first.  After he's provided 
for his family, only then can he be of any use in a relief role.  To 
expect otherwise would be totally unrealistic.

This may mean that the number of licsened operators will be reduced from
what is normally available, which are preciously few to begin with.  
This may mean that not all emergency communications needs will be met, 
at least initially.  This may also mean that outside volunteers will 
need to be brought into the area to assist.  This will be especially 
true in those counties in Kentucky which only have a few licensed 
amateur radio operators to begin with.

>>For the most part this was the case at the Gulf.  Amateur's 
>>from outside the area came in, bringing with them portable 
>>equipment, and set up the communications for the Red Cross to 
>>include a team from Colorado who set up a portable repeater.  
>>Thus one may conclude that in non-disaster times local ARES 
>>groups should train locally but train to mobilize somewhere 
>>else preparing to encounter no operational repeaters and no 
>>operational commercial systems, etc.  

Portable equipment is a good idea.  Of course, a lot of the need 
depends upon the particular type of disaster, the area affected, and the 
emergency communications needs that are to be met.  In any case, though,
the portable equipment needs to be able to be operated independently of 
the electricity grid as well as the fuel grid.

As for ARES groups training locally but being prepared to mobilize 
somewhere else, that's a good idea.  However, the vast majority of 
disasters that the ARES teams will be responding to will be local 
disasters, rather than widespread disasters.  Thus, the first priority 
of the teams should be to train and work with the local emergency 
management directors.  

Plus, not every ARES volunteer is capable of taking off of work and 
traveling to a distant area for an extended period of time.  Quite a few 
ARES volunteers have a regular job that they're expected to work at, 
and are unable to drop everything and disappear for weeks at a time.  
Quite a few ARES volunteers are elderly and unable to take the physical 
strain of being part of a "jump team".  Quite a few ARES volunteers 
have medical conditions which make their relocating into a disaster area 
ill advised.  That doesn't mean that such members aren't wanted.  Such 
members can perform a valuable service as long as it's restricted to 
local disasters.

One of the other concerns is that the local governmental emergency 
management agencies may be reluctant to trust outside amateur radio
operators.  While we like to believe that the amateur radio service is 
only composed of individuals of high moral standing, that's not always 
the case.  Additionally, outside jump team members will almost certainly
not be familar with the planning and operational modes that the local
ARES teams have established with the local governmental emergency 
management agency director (and team).  Thus, governmental emergency 
management agency directors may be reluctant to entrust operation of a 
critical emergency communications system to an unfamilar ARES volunteer. 
Therefore, jump teams from outside of the affected area, or who are 
unknown to the local governmental officials may find themselves 
stationed at relatively unimportant locations, or even denied entry to 
the area.

>>I am confident is 
>>saying that if the Williamson system had been installed at 
>>the Gulf, it would have been rendered, for the most part, 
>>inoperative, mainly because of the repeaters and towers.  
>>None of the Ham repeaters were working until several days 
>>later because of bent antennas and water damage.

Depending upon the particular design of the Williamson system, it may 
or may not have been working.  It may have been flooded.  It may have
been struck by lightning, which is common in hurricanes (especially true
if the site wasn't adequately hardened against electromagnetic 
incidents).  It may have sustained wind damage to towers or antennas 
(How many commercial antennas are rated for 175 mile an hour winds?  How 
many towers are installed to survive 175 mile an hour winds?  (Rohn only
lists ratings to 110 miles per hour for its 25G, 45G, and 65G series.)).  

In any case, even if the central site had remained operational, remember
that a single site does not make a communications system.  It takes at 
least two stations to engage in communications.  Would a sufficient 
number of stations have survived to make the emergency communications 
system functional?  Maybe or maybe not.  But, I hope that we all keep 
that in mind as we design our own local community's emergency 
communications systems.

>>So the question is, why such an elaborate system when it is 
>>most likely, at the time of greatest need, not going to be 
>>operational?  None of the other commercial systems at the 
>>Gulf were.  

One important difference between an amateur emergency communications 
system and a commercial communications system is that most of the 
commercial communications systems are designed to make money.  As a 
result, the business that establish such systems are constrained by 
cost to make a profitable business.  Thus, such systems may not be 
physically or electrically hardened enough to withstand such a disaster.
On the other hand, amateur emergency communications systems are also
cost constrained, too, but there isn't the business case justification
for such installations.  Plus, such installations don't have to handle
the magnitude of traffic or the day to day operations that the 
commercial systems need to.

>>Are not the outsiders going to come in and 
>>provide communications while the locals are taking care of 
>>their families?  When the outsiders come in, if part of the 
>>elaborate system is still working, will they have the digital 
>>equipment necessary to communicate?

That's a legitimate concern.  Additionally, in the event that 
outside people are brought into an area, is there going to be adequate 
documentation on how to access the systems in order for those costly 
systems to be used?  That even applies to things as simple as the CTCSS 
tones on local repeaters, as well as more complex digital systems.  Is
this documentation going to be stored somewhere where it's readily 
accessible and available, even if the local amateur radio operators are 
incapacitated?  

>>I believe what Williamson County has done is a great 
>>achievement for Ham Radio (you have to start somewhere), I'm 
>>just not sure of its practicality in an actual emergency.  Am I wrong?

Yes and no.  One of the things to consider is what need is the system 
designed to meet.  Disasters come in all sizes, shapes, and colours.  
Small disasters tend to happen more often that large disasters, so it 
makes sense to plan for these small disasters.  On the other hand, that 
doesn't mean that the large disasters shouldn't be planned for, too.  
But, as is often the case, resources of all types are limited, and we 
have to do the best with the limited resources that we have available.
For a highly populated area with a lot of financial resources, a high 
end digital emergency communications system may make sense for 
handling the small diasters that are likely to impact a community.  For 
a sparsely populated, rural area, they may be lucky to have a couple 
of amateurs with handheld radios that can talk to each other via 
simplex as their only emergency communications system.

>>Jeff Martin, WB4JM
>>
>>Bowling Green

Dave
WA4QAL