[MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995
DSP3
jeepp at comcast.net
Fri Mar 23 11:11:27 EDT 2018
Oh... sorry about the misunderstanding. There are sufficient and
arguably well motivated CAP "operators", and fairly well trained in the
C.O.I. Its just that if a PL-259 comes loose, there's nobody around to
fix it. With that, I'll be quiet. Now about the ARC-5......
Jeep - K3HVG
On 3/23/2018 11:04 AM, Murray, Conard wrote:
>
> I was active in CAP as a communicator from 1978 to the early 90s. It
> was a lot of fun and a useful outlet for radio skills. I was
> frustrated towards the end by encroaching ‘thou shalt nots’ that made
> no sense and just hampered our efforts. I was the net control for our
> 4 Meg state SSB net one night each week. The Florida net was the half
> hour before mine. In the winter, the 4 Mhz band would go long before
> net time and I couldn’t hear any stations in TN and the NCS for
> Florida couldn’t hear any of his, but of course we could hear each
> other fine … so we just swapped duty. I would call the Florida net and
> he would call TN. This served us well and went on for over a year ..
> then the Florida wing commander issued an order that Florida stations
> were prohibited from contacting stations outside of Florida. No reason
> given or obvious to anyone.
>
> The last time I was on a CAP net was at a squadron campout. I was
> asked by the squadron commander to put on a commo class and have the
> members with Radio Operator Cards and callsigns check in to the
> evening SSB net from the campsite. The class went well and the net
> started up .. the NCS got to our group and all my students checked in
> in order doing a wonderful job. The NCS was one of the old elite guys
> that had been in CAP since the war and got all upset asking who were
> all those stations checking in? I told him I was having a class and
> they were all with me and he replies that didn’t matter. They were
> ‘not authorized for HF operation.’ I told him back that they passed
> the same test that I did and they had the same radio operator card
> that I did. He said that didn’t matter.. they were not authorized ….
> So I told him (on the air ) that I guess that meant I was not
> authorized as well and gave my full callsign and asked him to show my
> station closed. Out. I switched off the power and never went back. CAP
> was a great thing but, like the BSA .. has been brought down by
> legislation.
>
> 73,
>
> Conard, WS4S ex Blue Chip 196
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on
> behalf of Peter Gottlieb <kb2vtl at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 9:19:06 AM
> *To:* mkdorney at aol.com
> *Cc:* mrca at mailman.qth.net
> *Subject:* Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <https://discover.aol.com/products-and-services/aol-desktop-for-windows>
>>
>>
>> .
>> In a message dated 3/23/2018 7:49:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>> jeepp at comcast.net <mailto: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
>> <mailto:scottjohnson1 at cox.net>>
>> Date: 3/22/18 23:08 (GMT-05:00)
>> To: 'Mkdorney' <mkdorney at aol.com <mailto:mkdorney at aol.com>>,
>> 'Peter Gottlieb' <kb2vtl at gmail.com <mailto:kb2vtl at gmail.com>>,
>> mrca at mailman.qth.net <mailto: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 <mailto:scottjohnson1 at cox.net>
>>
>> scott.johnson at ieee.org <mailto:scott.johnson at ieee.org>
>>
>> *From:* mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>> <mailto:bounces at mailman.qth.net> <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:kb2vtl at gmail.com>>
>> *Cc:* mrca at mailman.qth.net <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> MRCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20180323/33688929/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the MRCA
mailing list