[MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995

Fri Mar 23 10:19:06 EDT 2018

I was able to show that my RF-350K met specs, and that the Micom 2 did not, but to no avail. The CAP NTIA list is not based on tests but manufacturer spec sheet and no exceptions were being granted. There was supposed to be a grandfather clause but that was at the discretion of each wing I heard and in any case I was out. As I was involved in the early MARS-ALE development effort I was able to run ALE as well, and indeed for a while later operated in receive-only mode logging activity. 

As for VHF, at one point they changed freqs and then wouldn’t let anyone know them, but eventually they got out and some of us bought cheap surplus radios (like the Motorola Visar) that we’re on the approved list and resold to other members at cost. CAP did accept those for use. I used an Astro Saber which I programmed for CAP P25 as well (which was a learning curve and effort!) but despite many missions never used that capability. 

They would assign the EFJ portables but one got stolen from a member’s car and CAP held him liable. His insurance wouldn’t pay as it wasn’t his property so basically everyone returned their radios to CAP. 

Peter

> On Mar 23, 2018, at 10:05 AM, mkdorney at aol.com wrote:
> 
> I thought that local CAP squadrons in reality might operate outside the realm of the ignorant bean counters, especially when the alternative is an inability to operate at all.  It's one thing when radio equipment is supplied and maintained by the government - then you use that equipment almost exclusively ( by the way, we weren't totally exclusive even when I was on active duty in the Army.  Our radios were supplemented by our privately owned CB radios when their use would not effect security and the mission called for their use.  We didn't ask permission to do that, either).  But it's a totally different ball game if volunteers have to supply their own gear.  You have to use what is available via the volunteers, who will use what works best for them, and to hell with those who exist echelons above reality.  And there's no way for CAP to test or certify?  Oh yeah, CAP volunteers are going to spend a whole lot more of their own hard earned paychecks on overpriced radio gear because some radio geek in Washington DC told them to.  Believe that, and there's some oceanfront property in Missouri that I like to sell you.
> 
> Mark D.
> WW2RDO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " In matters of style, swim with the current.  In matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> Sent from AOL Desktop
> 
> 
> .
> In a message dated 3/23/2018 7:49:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, jeepp at comcast.net writes:
> 
> Well, let me let the cat peek out of the bag.  Many do, in fact, use other than NTIA compliant gear.  By that, I mean gear that operates benignly in the affected spectrum.  Frequency, bandwidth, harmonics, et al are totally compliant, however.  CAP has no capability to test and measure, much less certify equipment, although they have a "list".  NTIA disavows any such lists.  At any rate, There have been incredibly few, complaints filed from a user or adjacent user over the past 30 years.  Now, we did have a jammer or two come up.  Bottom line, and paraphrasing one of Geo. Patton's comments..."Well, they have their schedules, and I have mine.
> K3HVG
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Scott Johnson <scottjohnson1 at cox.net> 
> Date: 3/22/18 23:08 (GMT-05:00) 
> To: 'Mkdorney' <mkdorney at aol.com>, 'Peter Gottlieb' <kb2vtl at gmail.com>, mrca at mailman.qth.net 
> Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995 
> 
> The CAP is an auxiliary of the USAF, so that would probably be the end of the management for that particular squadron.
> 
>  
> 
> Scott V. Johnson W7SVJ
> 
> 5111 E. Sharon Dr.
> 
> Scottsdale, AZ 85254-3636
> 
> H (602) 953-5779
> 
> C (480) 550-2358
> 
> scottjohnson1 at cox.net
> 
> scott.johnson at ieee.org
> 
>  
> 
> From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> On Behalf Of Mkdorney via MRCA
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:34 PM
> To: Peter Gottlieb <kb2vtl at gmail.com>
> Cc: mrca at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995
> 
>  
> 
> I wonder what’s would happen if the individual wings in CAP simply told the powers that be that they weren’t going to use the crap that the stuffed shirts in Washington wanted them to use. 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> WW2RDO
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On March 22, 2018 at 3:16 PM DSP3 <jeepp at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Concur with other comments....   Good question, though.  I've been around and around with them for a long time, now.  To no avail.  CAP opted not to even try and get partial waivers, not for stability or transmit spectrum of course, but some onerous specs, especially for both HF and VHF for receivers.  Bottom line, 99% of really good ham gear is no longer said to be usable (truth told, for the last 25 years).  The amateur population in CAP is about nil.  There are some great folks who are hams and have stuck it out, though.  CAP mortgaged its soul with the AF and had them buy $2000 Motorola 100 watt rigs with a some B&W "flying dummy loads" (no tuners, of course, so ERP is about 20-60 watts), some with ALE.  ALE program has no computer interface so radios must be attended for any traffic be passed.  There is no "ALE message system".  VHF FM (NB) were procured from EFJ for over $1k, each.  I have both Kenwood and other ham-type FM with NB capability that will run the pants off the EFJ.  Of course, the EFJ's have P25 digital mode, but its never really used.  On missions, in the air-ground scenario, the Kenwood would copy aircraft much further out that the EFJs.  Interesting note, though, many State and Federal plus MARS entities use "ham" gear and it works fine in the SHARES and other comms programs.  Go figure.  But, after 56 years, I elected to retire but with no regrets, whatever.  Things changed, better and worse, since 1957 but a good ride!!!
> 
> Jeep K3HVG
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20180323/a0e98fb2/attachment.html>